LSA-PAST: Layer-Specific Adaptation and Prototype Transport for Compositional Incremental Learning
Authors: Kyle Stein, Andrew Arash Mahyari, Guillermo Francia, Eman El-Sheikh, Jiangpeng He
Organizations: University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL, USA · Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Pensacola, FL, USA · Indiana Univeristy, Bloomington, IN, USA
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) enables models to recognize new classes over time while retaining prior knowledge, but many real-world problems are compositional, where visual concepts arise from combinations of primitives such as states (i.e., red, shiny) and objects (i.e., shoe, car). Standard CIL methods treat each composition as an independent class, ignoring shared primitives and providing no mechanism to stabilize their representations as new compositions arrive. This causes parameter updates to entangle primitives and induce drift that degrades performance on earlier compositions. Compositional Incremental Learning (composition-IL) formalizes this setting by introducing new state-object compositions across tasks. In this paper, we propose Layer-Specific Adaptation with Prototype-Anchored Adapter-Space Transport (LSA-PAST), a parameter-efficient method tailored to composition-IL. LSA integrates Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) into a frozen ViT with depth-specialized adapters for states, objects, and compositions. PAST then maps past, anchored prototypes into the current adapter space through a rehearsal-free affine transform fit on current-task data, enabling old prototypes to remain compatible with new adapters. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LSA-PAST achieves state-of-the-art (SOA) accuracy-forgetting trade-off performance for composition-IL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Accuracy–forgetting trade-off on composition-IL benchmarks for adapter- and prompt-based methods.
Figure 2: (A) We adapt a frozen ViT with depth-specialized LoRA feeding three heads. (B) Post-training, empirical prototypes are blended with primitive directions (PGS) and stored. (C) Subsequent tasks instantiate fresh adapters for new compositions. (D) Using current-task images as transient correspondences, AST fits an affine map ϕt′→t to transport past prototypes into the current adapter space without rehearsal. (E) Inference ensembles cosine similarities across all adapter spaces, recognizing both new and previously learned compositions.
Method type
Method
%Params
Split-Clothing
Split-UT-Zappos
Split-C-GQA
5 tasks
5 tasks
10 tasks
5 tasks
Avg Acc % ( ↑ )
FTT % ( ↓ )
Avg Acc % ( ↑ )
FTT % ( ↓ )
Avg Acc % ( ↑ )
FTT % ( ↓ )
Avg Acc % ( ↑ )
FTT % ( ↓ )
Classic CIL
EWC [ 20 ]
100
47.89\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.87}
52.75\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.44}
37.59\text{\scriptsize\pm 2.06}
55.70\text{\scriptsize\pm 2.76}
24.63\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.94}
61.31\text{\scriptsize\pm 2.29}
38.69\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.39}
38.98\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.53}
LwF [ 28 ]
100
49.96\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.68}
44.22\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.53}
40.15\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.43}
49.61\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.68}
30.38\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.41}
58.15\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.20}
45.95\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.72}
23.21\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.05}
iCaRL [ 39 ]
100
68.65\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.41}
31.74\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.89}
37.78\text{\scriptsize\pm 2.14}
55.06\text{\scriptsize\pm 3.50}
31.40\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.96}
59.65\text{\scriptsize\pm 2.40}
33.40\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.40}
53.32\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.90}
Prompt-based
L2P [ 45 ]
0.2
83.16\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.50}
10.97\text{\scriptsize\pm 2.02}
35.26\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.81}
28.17\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.05}
31.65\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.16}
31.02\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.62}
39.39\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.24}
27.27\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.67}
Table 1: Average accuracy and forgetting on Split-Clothing, Split-UT-Zappos under 5-task and 10-task, and Split-C-GQA. %Params denotes cumulative additional parameters relative to the ViT-B/16 backbone. Best and Second-Best results highlighted.
Type
Method
Split-Clothing
Split-C-GQA
State %
Object %
State %
Object %
Classic
EWC [ 20 ]
86.49\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.97}
52.72\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.30}
52.91\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.28}
60.42\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.91}
LwF [ 28 ]
87.11\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.66}
54.57\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.69}
\mathbf{58.33}\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.42}
66.32\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.31}
iCaRL [ 39 ]
91.21\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.05}
71.70\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.99}
46.96\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.27}
55.61\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.45}
Prompt
L2P [ 45 ]
85.41\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.23}
95.42\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.42}
51.65\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.54}
63.53\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.04}
Dual-Prompt [ 44 ]
86.89\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.37}
95.87\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.53}
49.52\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.69}
64.15\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.37}
Table 2: State and Object Accuracy (%) on Split-Clothing and Split-C-GQA (5 tasks). Best and Second-Best results highlighted.
Split-Clothing
Split-UT-Zappos
LSA
PGS
Inference
Avg Acc % ( ↑ )
FTT % ( ↓ )
Avg Acc % ( ↑ )
FTT % ( ↓ )
✓
✓
Unaligned Ens.
75.71\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.39}
28.32\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.53}
29.92\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.37}
53.21\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.51}
✓
✗
Native
90.29\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.65}
4.97\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.48}
40.85\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.93}
17.56\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.71}
✓
✓
Native
90.74\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.65}
3.91\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.37}
41.67\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.57}
14.81\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.85}
✓
✗
AST Ens. (ours)
90.81\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.27}
4.89\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.87}
44.58\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.56}
18.63\text{\scriptsize\pm 3.17}
✓
✓
LDC Ens. [ 11 ]
91.41\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.40}
3.49\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.73}
43.73\text{\scriptsize\pm 0.77}
15.09\text{\scriptsize\pm 1.74}
Table 3: Component and inference ablation. Native scores each class only in its originating adapter space, while ensemble (Ens.) variants additionally aggregate available cross-space evidence.
Figure 3: PGS success and failure cases on Split-UT-Zappos and Split-C-GQA. Boxes show Δ forgetting, with green indicating reduced forgetting and red indicating no improvement.
Split-Clothing
Split-C-GQA
Task Gap
Uncorrected
LDC [ 11 ]
DPCR [ 17 ]
AST
Uncorrected
LDC [ 11 ]
DPCR [ 17 ]
AST
1
0.740
0.898
0.863
0.880
0.784
0.942
0.945
0.941
2
0.750
0.873
0.830
0.897
0.786
0.928
0.934
0.945
3
0.704
0.844
0.812
0.886
0.798
0.910
0.920
0.948
4
0.662
0.819
0.799
0.905
0.774
0.881
0.894
0.952
Overall
0.728
0.872
0.836
0.889
0.786
0.925
0.932
0.944
Table 4: Cosine similarity to oracle current-space prototypes.
Figure 4: Top: effect of AST transport-pair budget on accuracy and forgetting. Bottom: LSA ablation with explicit state (S), object (O), and composition (C) layer ranges.
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) aims to continually learn new categories without forgetting previously acquired knowledge. Vision-language models such as CLIP offer strong transferable representations via multi-modal supervision, making them promising for CIL. However, applying CLIP to CIL poses two major challenges: (1) adapting to downstream tasks often requires additional learnable modules, increasing model complexity and susceptibility to forgetting; and (2) while multi-modal representations offer complementary strengths, existing methods have yet to fully realize their potential in effectively integrating visual and textual modalities. To address these issues, we propose BOFA (Bridge-layer Orthogonal Fusion for Adaptation), a novel framework for CIL. BOFA confines all model adaptation exclusively to CLIP's existing cross-modal bridge-layer, thereby adding no extra parameters or inference cost. To prevent forgetting within this layer, it leverages Orthogonal Low-Rank Fusion, a mechanism that constrains parameter updates to a low-rank ``safe subspace" mathematically constructed to be orthogonal to past task features. This ensures stable knowledge accumulation without data replay. Furthermore, BOFA employs a cross-modal hybrid prototype that synergizes stable textual prototypes with visual counterparts derived from our stably adapted bridge-layer, enhancing classification performance. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks show that BOFA achieves superior accuracy and efficiency compared to existing methods.
Lan Li, Tao Hu, Da-Wei Zhou +3
School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China · National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) aims to continuously learn new classes without forgetting previously acquired knowledge. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning with pre-trained models reduces parameter overhead but can suffer from cumulative interference and suboptimal alignment between inference samples and specialized modules. We propose Dynamic LoRA-Experts and Prototype-Ensemble Matching (DLEPEM), a two-stage rehearsal-free framework. DLEPEM allocates a task-specific LoRA-Expert for each incremental task to reduce cross-task interference, then combines frozen pre-trained-model prototypes with task-adaptive LoRA-Expert prototypes for reliable task-level discrimination. Experiments on standard CIL and Few-Shot CIL benchmarks demonstrate strong performance under the evaluated protocols.
Hongwei Zhao, Rui Liu, Yansong Liu
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) with pre-trained models (PTMs) aims to sequentially adapt PTMs to new categories without forgetting old knowledge. Built upon PTMs, existing adapter-based methods mainly train models via distinct task-specific adapters, and present a uniform knowledge allocation for each adapter during inference. However, this allocation mechanism ignores the nature of task discrepancy and leads to suboptimal utilization of adapters. Also, under CIL constraint, an allocator is prone to forgetting when tasks evolve. To address these issues, we propose a Non-Forgetting Allocation with Bi-Level Competition (NoFA-BC). NoFA-BC constructs a non-forgetting allocator (NFA) by transforming the allocator training into a recursive least-squares problem and achieves an allocator equivalent to that trained with all data. Based on the NFA, a Bi-Level Competition (BLC) including an intra-task level Winner-Takes-All (WTA) mechanism and inter-task Last-Ones-Fall (LOF) elimination is proposed to provide better allocation of adapter knowledge. WTA extracts the most significant logit within a task to represent the adapter's contribution and LOF suppresses the irrelevant adapters. With BLC, participation ratio of each adapter can be tailored for each input. Moreover, a Stability Enhancement (SE) process is incorporated to further improve the performance of old tasks.
Xiang Tan, Run He, Yawen Cui +6
South China University of Technology · Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Agency for Science, Technology and Research +3