Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) aims to learn new classes continuously without forgetting the previously learned ones. Recent works in CIL have significantly advanced across various modalities; however, at the intersection of audio-visual modality, this problem remains underexplored. While representations from multimodal foundational models (MFMs) encapsulate rich static priors, our preliminary analysis shows that these representations struggle in incremental settings. Motivated by this, we propose a framework that generalizes frozen MFMs to audio-visual CIL. Specifically, we leverage their dense audio and visual representations and employ an attention-based contextual guidance module, in which the audio representations serve as task-stable contextual guidance for the visual representations, enabling effective class recognition in the incremental setting. To further mitigate catastrophic forgetting and preserve stability across tasks, we employ feature- and logit-level distillation, which are primarily responsible for the reduced forgetting. Extensive evaluations across various audio-visual CIL benchmarks demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Code is available at https://github.com/avigupta2798/MFM-CIL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of standard audio-visual feature extractor approach with MFMs. Standard approach [ 57 ] : Traditional method processes incoming visual and audio data through stand-alone feature extractors. The t-SNE plots on the AVE dataset from incremental tasks (Task 0 to Task 3) show the overlap and cause clutter, leading to severe catastrophic forgetting, reflected in the decline in testing accuracy [Top-right] and high forgetting [Bottom-right] ( ). MFM-based Approach : MFMs as feature extractor projects both visual features and audio features into a shared latent space, thereby maintaining clear, distinctly separated class clusters as new tasks arrive and also reflecting in high test accuracy and less forgetting throughout the incremental learning tasks ( ). Linear-Probe Naive concatenation of MFM’s features with no distillation losses and contextual guidance for analyzing the impact of MFMs ( ).
Figure 2: [Left] The overall architecture. At current task t , audio ( za ) and visual ( zv ) representations are derived from audio signal ( xa ) and video frames ( xv ) using frozen audio ( ψamodel ) and visual ( ψvmodel ) encoder, respectively of a Foundational Multimodal model ( model ). The audio representations are utilized as contextual guidance for the corresponding visual representations in a transformer-based attention module. The final video representations ( zt,v′ ) are passed through the classifier for precise class prediction ( y^t ). The model is trained using Lce (for class prediction), Lfd (distillation at feature level), and Lkd (distillation at logits level). [Top-Right] We leverage three different multimodal foundational models ( model∈{sam,ibind,qwen} ) to support our hypothesis.
Models (model)
dmodel
Tv
Tamodel
SAM-Audio
1024
16
59
ImageBind
1024
16
1
Qwen2.5-Omni-3B
2048
16
251
Table 1: Architecture details.
Figure 3: Comparative analysis of task-wise test accuracy ( % ) between AV-CIL [ 57 ] and our proposed approach (on ImageBind). (a) Individual task performance for the AVE-CI dataset on 4 incremental tasks. (b) Individual task performance for the VS100-CI dataset on 10 incremental tasks. (c) Individual task performance for the K-S-CI dataset on 5 incremental tasks.
Methods
Exemplar
AVE-CI
VS100-CI
K-S-CI
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
Fine-tuning
✗
42.40
70.99
26.21
89.37
41.18
89.62
LwF [ 46 ]
✗
58.07
26.90
59.34
23.01
65.54
16.55
iCaRL-NME [ 62 ]
✓
56.15
11.71
56.19
12.80
64.51
18.70
iCaRL-FC [ 62 ]
✓
65.88
26.08
64.22
29.94
65.54
40.57
SS-IL [ 4 ]
✓
61.94
22.49
69.20
9.75
69.71
10.53
Table 2: Comparison of our proposed approach with previous works on different datasets. † represents results that are produced for fair comparison. Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Methods
AVE-CI
VS100-CI
K-S-CI
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
AV-CIL † (SAM-Audio)
84.38
2.24
74.04
4.11
80.21
1.45
Ours (SAM-Audio)
88.68
0.42
79.64
0.34
84.01
0.43
AV-CIL † (Qwen2.5)
82.98
5.91
80.43
5.40
79.32
4.28
Ours (Qwen2.5)
86.14
4.18
82.40
1.20
81.85
3.84
AV-CIL † (ImageBind)
85.80
3.04
77.70
7.72
77.96
7.09
Table 3: Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL [ 57 ] . † represents results that are produced for fair settings. Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Figure 4: Analysis of AV-CIL & ours on different backbones (AVE-CI).
Methods
AVE-CI
VS100-CI
K-S-CI
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
Linear Probe (SAM-Audio)
77.62
3.43
61.31
4.75
79.71
2.87
Ours (SAM-Audio)
88.68
0.42
79.64
0.34
84.01
0.43
Linear Probe (Qwen2.5)
72.30
9.13
73.36
6.15
72.84
7.31
Ours (Qwen2.5)
86.14
4.18
82.40
1.20
81.85
3.84
Linear Probe (ImageBind)
80.17
4.47
70.22
8.47
71.23
7.54
Table 4: Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with the naive concatenation (Linear Probe). Best results ( % ) are in Bold .
Figure 5: Comparative analysis among MFM-based approaches for different task sequences using mean test accuracy ( % ). (a) Three task sequences for AVE-CI, 4 tasks (7 classes per task), 7 tasks (4 classes per task), and 14 tasks (2 classes per task); (b) Four task sequences for VS100-CI, 2 tasks (50 classes per task), 5 tasks (20 classes per task), 10 tasks (10 classes per task), 20 tasks (5 classes per task); (c) Four task sequences for K-S-CI, 2 tasks (15 classes per task), 5 tasks (6 classes per task), 6 tasks (5 classes per task), 15 tasks (2 classes per task).
Lce
Lkd
Lfd
SAM-Audio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
Am↑
Favg↓
✓
✗
✗
87.26
4.29
86.55
3.18
83.20
7.32
✓
✓
✗
87.34
2.30
87.60
2.80
83.94
5.45
✓
✗
✓
87.79
1.32
87.78
1.02
84.49
5.01
✓
✓
✓
88.68
0.42
91.48
0.52
86.14
4.18
Table 5: Effectiveness of different loss components ( Lce , Lfd , and Lkd ) on AVE-CI dataset. Bold denotes the best results.
λfd
λkd
AVE-CI
K-S-CI
SAM-Audio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
SAM-Audio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
0.2
1.0
88.04
88.66
82.92
84.50
84.88
81.52
0.4
1.0
87.90
89.33
82.68
84.36
85.13
81.52
0.6
1.0
88.06
89.48
82.41
84.07
85.11
81.49
0.8
1.0
87.92
89.36
82.57
83.72
85.05
81.46
1.0
1.0
88.68
91.48
86.14
84.01
86.29
81.85
Table 6: Sensitivity analysis of distillation hyperparameters λfd and λkd by comparing the accuracy ( Am ) for different MFM-based backbones. Bold denotes the adopted configuration.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Audio
Video
SAM-Audio
Qwen2.5
✓
✗
30.75
67.75
✗
✓
38.98
69.84
✓
✓
88.68
86.14
Appendix
Table 7: Effectiveness of individual modality on the AVE dataset. Bold denotes the best accuracy ( Am ).
Methods
AVE-CI
VS100-CI
K-S-CI
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
Am
Favg
Am
Favg
Am
Favg
Am
Favg
Am
Favg
Am
Favg
AudioMAE/VideoMAE
74.04
7.63
78.06 ± 1.17
1.12 ± 0.45
72.80
5.49
79.88 ± 1.37
4.65 ± 0.55
73.06
6.48
80.24 ± 1.32
5.45 ± 0.76
SAM-Audio
84.38
2.24
88.72 ± 0.67
0.43 ± 0.03
74.04
4.11
79.11 ± 0.76
0.37 ± 0.08
80.21
1.45
83.34 ± 1.75
0.54 ± 0.12
ImageBind
85.80
3.04
91.25 ± 0.51
0.55 ± 0.06
77.70
7.72
84.01 ± 1.21
0.10 ± 0.06
77.96
7.09
86.11 ± 0.55
0.76 ± 0.54
Qwen2.5
82.98
5.91
86.97 ± 1.12
4.66 ± 0.97
80.43
5.40
82.50 ± 0.24
1.34 ± 0.32
79.32
4.28
82.20 ± 0.44
3.54 ± 0.40
Appendix
Table 8: Analysis over three random seeds for three benchmark datasets.
Backbone
Frozen Params
Trainable Params
GFLOPs
Latency
VRAM
SAMAudio
≈ 500M
27.31M
1.06G
4.11ms
1.58GB
ImageBind
≈ 700M
27.31M
0.54G
5.84ms
1.41GB
Qwen2.5
≈ 1.5B
109.15M
2.17G
6.12ms
5.61GB
Appendix
Table 9: Compute/Memory overhead for different backbones.
Steps
SAMAudio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
Step 0
86.15
90.39
91.34
95.20
90.38
92.30
Step 1
85.23
91.43
87.14
95.71
83.33
86.19
Step 2
83.01
86.35
84.75
86.67
81.58
83.80
Step 3
83.14
86.55
79.90
88.32
76.64
82.23
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL on AVE-CI dataset 4 Tasks (7 classes per task) . Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Steps
SAMAudio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
Step 0
83.14
91.33
92.33
93.34
82.54
92.94
Step 1
81.84
85.70
86.30
89.02
80.93
86.20
Step 2
78.06
83.03
84.10
87.46
80.47
87.19
Step 3
76.45
82.02
81.12
86.91
77.0
83.59
Step 4
76.36
80.61
78.80
86.24
75.31
83.35
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL on the VGGSound100-CI dataset 10 Tasks (10 classes per task) . Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Steps
SAMAudio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
Step 0
89.59
95.97
93.14
96.77
92.74
94.09
Step 1
80.05
85.97
77.97
85.71
77.77
81.95
Step 2
80.23
80.85
76.78
84.75
77.57
80.24
Step 3
79.27
79.42
73.98
83.17
76.46
78.64
Step 4
74.23
77.83
67.93
81.05
72.04
74.31
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL on Kinetics-CI dataset 5 Tasks (6 classes per task) . Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Steps
SAMAudio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
7 Tasks (4 classes per task)
Step 0
86.55
99.2
90.00
98.89
88.00
98.28
Step 1
86.36
70.0
77.00
80.0
55.45
63.63
Step 2
85.45
86.93
75.34
91.47
78.07
78.98
Step 3
83.83
88.07
74.36
92.59
62.30
68.72
Appendix
Table 13: Task-wise Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL on AVE-CI dataset. Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Steps
SAMAudio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
5 Tasks (20 classes per task)
Step 0
84.36
91.74
91.74
93.66
82.35
88.78
Step 1
79.38
80.51
81.04
83.38
76.25
72.92
Step 2
73.20
75.65
76.93
79.28
71.62
85.89
Step 3
70.17
75.16
71.44
77.76
67.83
82.46
Appendix
Table 14: Task-wise Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL on VGGSound100-CI dataset. Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Steps
SAMAudio
ImageBind
Qwen2.5
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
AV-CIL
Ours
6 Tasks (5 classes per task)
Step 0
89.19
95.82
92.74
98.12
84.35
95.18
Step 1
81.42
86.09
77.58
86.75
70.90
83.28
Step 2
70.77
76.04
76.39
85.62
69.68
76.04
Step 3
79.37
81.75
72.00
82.91
66.76
79.35
Appendix
Table 15: Task-wise Comparison of our proposed approach on different MFMs with AV-CIL on Kinetics-CI dataset. Best results ( % ) are marked in Bold .
Class-Incremental Learning (CIL) aims to continuously learn new classes without forgetting previously acquired knowledge. While recent CIL advances have spurred significant interest across various modalities, the audio-visual setting remains underexplored. Furthermore, although foundational multimodal models like SAM-Audio encapsulate rich static priors, our empirical analysis reveals that these representations struggle in incremental settings. This work bridges this gap by integrating SAM-Audio's audio-visual priors into the CIL setting. Specifically, we leverage its dense audio and visual representations and employ a novel guided attention strategy where the audio features contextually guide the visual representations. To further mitigate catastrophic forgetting, we introduce dual-level distillation objectives at both the feature and logit levels. Extensive evaluations on audio-visual CIL benchmarks demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods.
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) requires models to recognize new classes over time without forgetting previously learned ones. With the rise of vision-language pre-training, CLIP has become a strong foundation for CIL. A common design in CLIP-based CIL is to construct textual classifier weights by encoding class-name templates with the CLIP text encoder, and then classify visual features by image-text cosine similarity. This design is appealing: since CLIP aligns images and text in a shared embedding space, textual weights appear to provide an off-the-shelf classifier for incremental classes. However, we show that this seemingly natural design is not always beneficial, as a modality gap can still separate the two modalities and make textual classifier weights deviate from visual class distributions. Empirically, under identical task-wise CIL training, initializing the cosine classifier with visual class centers yields lower loss and better incremental accuracy than using CLIP textual features. Motivated by these observations, we propose VIS, a visual-only method for CLIP-based CIL that removes the deployed textual branch and constructs the incremental classifier entirely in the visual space. To obtain stronger task-adaptive visual representations, VIS uses only base-session data to enhance CLIP's final visual representation with informative visual-layer features. Built on the enhanced visual representation, VIS employs a simple kernelized incremental least-squares SVM, whose classifier weights are solved in closed form from additive sufficient statistics. When new classes arrive, VIS accumulates their sufficient statistics and recomputes the classifier weights for all seen classes, enabling efficient incremental updates while preserving historical class knowledge. Extensive experiments show that VIS achieves state-of-the-art performance without a textual branch.
Tao Hu, Zhen-Hao Xie, Jingcai Guo +2
School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University · State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University · Hong Kong Polytechnic University