Vision-language models (VLMs) such as CLIP retain zero-shot recognition ability, but their open-world use often requires task-agnostic continual learning: tasks arrive sequentially, past data are unavailable, task identity is unknown, and the backbone cannot be retrained. We argue that this setting fails VLMs through three coupled pressures beyond the stability-plasticity tradeoff: (1) modal-consistency drift, (2) representation-space interference, and (3) per-task capacity shortfall. We propose COMET (Collaborative Mixture-of-Expert Transfer) to resolve these three issues respectively as follows. A frozen teacher provides only a feature reference on a shared image-text pool; Tri-Affinity Distillation preserves image-image, text-text, and image-text geometry; and Student-Aware Cross-Expert Distillation aligns new experts with compatible prior experts so routing errors degrade gracefully. We design COMET to keep capacity and inference separate: a contextual bandit keeps or merges full per-task experts using post-training signals, while a reconstruction router selects sparse experts at test time without teacher semantics. On the X-TAIL benchmark, we show that each proposed component improves continual learning performance. COMET shows that continual vision-language adaptation can preserve multimodal geometry, coordinate accumulated experts, and allocate capacity jointly when feature reference, expert shaping, routing, and capacity control are separated by construction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of COMET. Targeting task-agnostic continual vision–language learning without replay or full-backbone retraining. It decomposes three failure modes: modal drift, routing-induced expert interference, and capacity shortfall into three role-disjoint remedies: TAD for CLIP-geometry preservation, SACED for cross-expert compatibility, and CMAB for adaptive expert allocation.
Method
Aircraft
Caltech101
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers
Food
MNIST
Pets
Cars
Sun397
Average
TinyCLIP ViT-39M/16@224px
Zero-shot
17.0
75.6
39.0
40.6
65.0
77.4
22.0
78.9
47.8
67.2
53.1
CLIP ViT-B/16@224px
Zero-shot
23.8
74.3
36.4
37.4
64.1
83.4
43.9
87.8
65.5
60.8
57.7
Transfer
LwF ( Li and Hoiem, 2018 )
–
64.8
29.1
7.6
49.7
72.0
33.3
64.1
29.8
53.7
44.9
Table 1: Comparison of different continual learning methods on X-TAIL full-shot for each task in terms of Transfer , Average , and Last scores (%). The best results are highlighted with bold style.
Method
Cov19
KT
NCT
SEM
Avg.
Zero-shot
TinyCLIP-ZS
48.6
5.8
17.0
22.3
23.4
CLIP-B-ZS
48.9
16.3
15.6
24.9
26.4
Transfer
CLIP-FT
–
10.3
0.0
21.5
10.6
WISE-FT
–
12.0
0.1
23.6
11.9
Table 2: Heterogeneous 4-dataset full-shot results. Transfer, Average, and Last scores (%). The best result in each metric and column is in bold .
TAD
SACED
Trans.
Avg.
Last
Full-shot
–
–
56.6
73.9
85.6
✓
–
61.3
75.4
87.6
–
✓
59.9
75.1
85.3
✓
✓
62.6
76.1
88.1
16-shot
Table 3: Ablations and inference cost. (a) TAD/SACED ablation on X-TAIL; (b) merge policy; (c) inference cost. Best results are in bold .
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Ordering
Avg
Last
M
Forgetting
Default
76.1
88.1
8
—
EuroSAT-last
72.0
83.3
5
2.3
Random seed 7
71.9
81.0
5
2.2
Random seed 99
71.3
83.8
5
2.1
Mean ± std
72.8±2.2
84.1±3.0
5.8±1.5
2.2±0.1
Appendix
Table 4: Task-order sensitivity on X-TAIL. “Forgetting” is per-task degradation from peak accuracy, averaged over the ten tasks. Forgetting is not available for the default ordering, so its mean is over the three re-ordered runs.
Variant
LI
LT
LCross
Avg
Last
Full COMET (TAD + SACED)
✓
✓
✓
76.1
88.1
Full TAD
✓
✓
✓
75.4
87.6
w/o LI
×
✓
✓
60.4
63.5
w/o LT
✓
×
✓
64.5
76.6
w/o LCross
✓
✓
×
68.8
80.7
LI only
✓
×
×
68.2
78.2
Appendix
Table 5: TAD sub-component ablation on X-TAIL. “Full TAD” uses all three losses; “Full COMET” adds SACED. SACED is disabled for the sub-component rows.
Figure 2: Per-input stability comparison between expA (cross-modal affinity only) and expB (image + text + cross-modal affinity). We plot the distribution of per-image cosine shift 1−cos(before,after) on the two tasks (SUN397 and Caltech101), shown for both embeddings and features. Dashed vertical lines indicate the mean shift and dotted lines indicate the 90th-percentile shift ( p90 ).
Selection rule
Avg
Last
Full criterion (COMET)
76.1
88.1
Co-activation only
74.8
88.4
All prior experts
74.4
87.9
Random selection
74.9
87.7
Top-1 agreement only
74.2
87.0
Distribution similarity only
67.8
77.2
Appendix
Table 6: SACED selection-criterion ablation on X-TAIL with reference budget kref=3 . The full criterion combines all three signals.
Variant
M
Params
Trans.
Avg
Last
A/M
COMET (CMAB)
8
551M
62.6
76.1
88.1
9.5
Always-Expand
10
667M
61.6
75.8
87.3
7.6
Fixed σ=0.9
9
609M
59.4
77.2
84.9
8.6
Fixed σ=0.7
2
203M
58.6
59.3
61.9
29.7
Fixed σ=0.5
1
145M
58.3
58.4
58.9
58.4
Always-Merge
1
145M
58.4
58.4
58.4
58.4
Appendix
Table 7: Extended expert-merging ablation on X-TAIL. A/M = Average accuracy per stored expert. Fixed σ replaces CMAB with a non-adaptive rule that merges whenever the candidate similarity exceeds σ .
Dataset
CLIP ZS
TinyCLIP ZS
Gap
COMET
Recovery
Aircraft
22.6
16.9
+5.7
83.1
>100%
Caltech101
93.5
93.9
−0.4
92.9
–
DTD
44.5
45.3
−0.8
78.8
–
EuroSAT
36.1
50.7
−14.6
98.5
–
Flowers102
65.7
67.9
−2.2
95.6
–
Food
84.4
78.5
+5.9
83.5
84.7%
Appendix
Table 8: Per-dataset capacity-gap analysis on X-TAIL. All accuracies use each dataset’s own label space, unlike the generalized X-TAIL label space of Table 1 . ZS = zero-shot. Recovery =(COMET−TinyCLIP ZS)/(CLIP ZS−TinyCLIP ZS)×100% on positive-gap datasets; “–” = capacity gap is non-positive.
Cell
Count
Share
Route-OK ∧ Predict-OK
66,664
82.4%
Route-OK ∧ Predict-Wrong
12,206
15.1%
Route-Wrong ∧ Predict-OK
1,086
1.3%
Route-Wrong ∧ Predict-Wrong
983
1.2%
Appendix
Table 9: Four-cell decomposition of test predictions on X-TAIL ( 80,939 samples). Route-OK = autoencoder selected the oracle expert; Predict-OK = expert produced the correct label.
Dataset
Domain
C10 (L0)
H (L0)
C10 (L11)
H (L11)
COVID-19
Medical
0.338
7.11
0.663
5.71
SEM
Microscopy
0.280
7.28
0.709
5.48
NCT-CRC
Histopath
0.228
7.39
0.760
5.08
Appendix
Table 10: Frozen teacher attention statistics on three OOD domains, averaged over N=50 images per dataset. C10 : fraction of attention in the top decile of 196 patches (uniform 0.10 ). H : Shannon entropy in bits (uniform log2196≈7.61 ).
Method
Trainable
Peak VRAM
Backbone in Memory
LwF
∼150 M
∼4.1 GB
Full CLIP (trainable)
WiSE-FT
∼150 M
∼2.9 GB
Full CLIP (trainable)
ZSCL
∼150 M (+150 M ref )
∼4.1 GB
Full CLIP + frozen ref
MoE-Adapters
2 – 5 M
∼1.1 GB
Frozen CLIP
LADA
1 – 3 M
∼0.9 GB
Frozen CLIP
COMET (Ours)
∼58 M
∼2.7 GB
Frozen teacher
Appendix
Table 11: Per-task training cost on a single NVIDIA A6000 ( 48 GB), batch size 64 , 1,000 iterations. “Trainable” counts only parameters that receive gradients.
Method
Aircraft
Caltech101
DTD
EuroSAT
Flowers
Food
MNIST
Pets
Cars
Sun397
Average
TinyCLIP ViT-39M/16@224px
Zero-shot
17.0
75.6
39.0
40.6
65.0
77.4
22.0
78.9
47.8
67.2
53.1
CLIP ViT-B/16@224px
Zero-shot
23.8
74.3
36.4
37.4
64.1
83.4
43.9
87.8
65.5
60.8
57.7
Transfer
LwF
–
64.8
29.1
7.6
49.7
72.0
35.6
64.0
29.0
53.7
45.1
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of different continual learning methods on X-TAIL [ Xu et al., 2024 ] 16-shot for each task in terms of Transfer , Average , and Last scores (%). The best results are highlighted with bold style.
The modality gap is intrinsic to multimodal alignment, where embeddings from different modalities remain partially separated in a shared representation space. In continual learning, CLIP-based vision-language models (VLMs) not only suffer catastrophic forgetting but also experience modality gap drift that disrupts the shared embedding geometry. Such drift degrades cross-modal alignment and generalization. We propose FPCD, an efficient framework combining Fast Null-space Projection (FNP) and Contrastive Distillation (CD). FNP accumulates compact Gram matrices of previous tasks' activations and projects gradients onto layer-adaptive approximate null spaces to reduce interference with learned representations. By replacing singular value decomposition with symmetric eigendecomposition, FNP accelerates projection-basis construction by a factor of 5-9. CD uses a small reference set to align the bidirectional image-to-text and text-to-image similarity distributions of the fine-tuned model with CLIP, thereby preserving pretrained cross-modal relations. On the 11-task MTIL benchmark, FPCD achieves 87.6% Last, 76.4% Average, and 65.2% Transfer. It also maintains more stable modality gaps and stronger zero-shot retrieval performance on COCO Captions and Flickr30k than competing methods. These results highlight the importance of controlling modality gap drift during continual adaptation of VLMs.
Tiantian Peng, Yuyang Liu, Shuo Yang +2
Peking University, Shenzhen Graduate School · Peng Cheng Laboratory
Catastrophic forgetting remains a major obstacle to continual learning in large language models (LLMs) and vision--language models (VLMs). Although Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures offer an efficient path to scaling, existing LoRA-based MoE continual learning methods still face a fundamental trade-off: they either isolate experts too aggressively, limiting knowledge transfer across tasks, or allow task-specific updates to overwrite important existing parameters, leading to severe forgetting. To address this, we propose CP-MoE, a continual learning framework built around a transient expert that captures early task-specific updates and guides their integration into stable experts. CP-MoE introduces a consistency-preserving routing bias, which uses the transient expert to estimate representation similarity with stable experts and steer routing towards more compatible expert selection, and a transient expert-guided regularisation mechanism, which selectively protects important historical parameters during merging. Together, these components reduce parameter interference and forgetting while preserving cross-task knowledge transfer. We validate CP-MoE on both unimodal and multimodal continual learning benchmarks with LLM-based and VLM-based MoE models. On SuperNI benchmark, spanning diverse sequential language tasks, CP-MoE achieves state-of-the-art performance and stronger zero-shot transfer to unseen tasks. On VQA v2 dataset, it scales effectively to multimodal visual reasoning, consistently reduces forgetting, and outperforms strong MoE baselines.
Yang Liu, Toan Nguyen, Flora D. Salim
School of Computer Science and Engineering University of New South Wales Australia
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit strong zero-shot capabilities, making them an attractive solution for continual learning across diverse tasks. However, during continual adaptation, both catastrophic forgetting and zero-shot degradation occur, severely degrading performance. In this paper, we introduce TASSO, a new paradigm that efficiently preserves the latent space geometry while ensuring network plasticity. We achieve this with two complementary techniques: subspace learning and geometry-aware knowledge distillation. Specifically, we first learn a sequence of task-specific low-rank projectors, which we use to project the latent representations before optimizing cross-entropy. Secondly, we employ a geodesic-distance-based loss that distills knowledge from the previous-task model while effectively preserving the latent space geometry. These design choices not only avoid unnecessary parameter updates along the full embedding dimensions but also improve learning by focusing on task-specific manifolds. Moreover, the geometry-aware distillation provides strong regularization and significantly reduces both catastrophic forgetting and zero-shot degradation throughout the continual learning sequence. Experimental results with the CLIP vision language model in the multi-domain task incremental and class incremental learning benchmarks demonstrate clear improvements over state-of-the-art methods in mitigating forgetting and preserving zero-shot capabilities.