Task Relevance-Driven Prompt Expansion for Federated Continual Learning
Authors: Jiahua Dong, Wenqi Liang, Yang Cong, Yichen Li, Hongyuan Yu, Henghui Ding, Yulun Zhang, Salman Khan, Fahad Shahbaz Khan
Organizations: Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, Abu Dhabi, UAE · University of Trento, Trento, Italy · South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology · Xiaomi, Beijing, China · Institute of Big Data, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Federated continual learning (FCL) has attracted considerable interest by enabling local clients to continually acquire knowledge from new tasks. However, most FCL methods assume that the global server has prior knowledge of the arrival times and number of categories for new tasks, which is unrealistic in the real world. Furthermore, they neglect the importance of positive inter-task semantic relationships when learning new tasks and are significantly affected by irrelevant relationships from old tasks, thereby exacerbating catastrophic forgetting. To resolve the above challenges, we develop a novel Task Relevance-driven Prompt Expansion (TRPE) model. Specifically, to eliminate the reliance on prior knowledge of new tasks, we propose an out-of-distribution detector to identify the arrival of new tasks within local clients, along with a radius-adaptive DBSCAN to infer the quantity of categories in new tasks on the proxy server. Moreover, to explore positive inter-task relationships, we calculate the affinity between the original gradient for learning new task and its gradient orthogonal to the feature space of old tasks to evaluate semantic relevance between old and new tasks from a global perspective. Then, we use this global task relevance to determine the key-prompt pair for new tasks and identify highly related old tasks. After concatenating their prompts for training, we can leverage such positive inter-task relations to improve the continual learning of newly arriving tasks. To balance the learning of new tasks and the forgetting of old ones, a soft orthogonality constraint is applied to the local key and prompt gradients. Experiments spanning diverse datasets and backbones confirm the efficacy of our TRPE model.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Illustration of the Federated Continual Learning (FCL) problem.
Fig. 2: Diagram of our model. It contains an out-of-distribution detector for recognizing new-task arrivals at local clients and a radius-adaptive DBSCAN module for estimating new-task category counts at the proxy server, thereby addressing dependence on prior knowledge (Sec. IV-B1 ). Our TRPE also comprises a task relevance measure to exploit positive inter-task relations for the continual learning of new tasks (Sec. IV-B2 ).
Fig. 3: Graphical illustration of the proposed task relevance measure.
Backbone
Methods
Exemplars
T=5
T=10
T=20
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
GLFC [ 13 ]
500
45.94
⇑ 42.50
58.67
⇑ 16.93
45.84
⇑ 41.80
53.86
⇑ 22.18
41.10
⇑ 43.20
44.12
⇑ 39.65
HFC [ 11 ] + FL
500
54.20
⇑ 34.24
64.05
⇑ 11.55
49.49
⇑ 38.15
55.68
⇑ 20.36
46.03
⇑ 38.27
47.98
⇑ 35.79
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
0
71.35
⇑ 17.09
48.16
⇑ 27.44
64.48
⇑ 23.16
50.92
⇑ 25.13
54.31
⇑ 29.99
47.63
⇑ 36.14
CODA-Prompt [ 53 ] + FL
0
72.40
⇑ 16.04
60.40
⇑ 15.20
68.42
⇑ 19.22
63.41
⇑ 12.63
58.42
⇑ 25.88
55.31
⇑ 28.46
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
0
80.52
⇑ 7.92
57.98
⇑ 17.62
82.77
⇑ 4.87
69.18
⇑ 6.86
80.38
⇑ 3.92
70.90
⇑ 12.87
TABLE I: Comparison results on the CIFAR-100 dataset [ 22 ] under different class-incremental settings of FCL, where Imp. refers to the improvements.
Backbone
Methods
Exemplars
T=5
T=10
T=20
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
GLFC [ 13 ]
200
53.71
⇑ 31.49
60.20
⇑ 22.44
45.89
⇑ 38.00
50.43
⇑ 33.41
39.84
⇑ 43.51
43.24
⇑ 38.95
HFC [ 11 ] + FL
200
55.15
⇑ 30.05
63.29
⇑ 19.35
46.58
⇑ 37.31
53.44
⇑ 30.40
40.63
⇑ 42.72
45.37
⇑ 36.82
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
0
64.93
⇑ 20.27
72.09
⇑ 10.55
60.20
⇑ 23.69
69.77
⇑ 14.08
52.41
⇑ 30.94
59.61
⇑ 22.58
CODA-Prompt [ 53 ] + FL
0
63.81
⇑ 21.39
68.97
⇑ 13.67
61.25
⇑ 22.64
67.62
⇑ 16.22
55.48
⇑ 27.87
57.98
⇑ 24.21
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
0
82.60
⇑ 2.59
80.46
⇑ 2.18
81.96
⇑ 1.93
81.09
⇑ 1.76
82.05
⇑ 1.30
80.96
⇑ 1.23
TABLE II: Comparison results on the CUB-200 dataset [ 59 ] under different class-incremental settings of FCL, where Imp. refers to the improvements.
Backbone
Methods
Exemplars
T=10
T=20
T=40
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
GLFC [ 13 ]
100
50.20
⇑ 16.21
57.13
⇑ 5.22
48.82
⇑ 14.38
52.97
⇑ 7.31
45.53
⇑ 15.02
51.82
⇑ 7.03
HFC [ 11 ] + FL
100
51.74
⇑ 14.67
58.91
⇑ 3.44
50.08
⇑ 9.12
55.35
⇑ 4.93
48.47
⇑ 12.08
55.65
⇑ 3.20
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
0
55.36
⇑ 11.05
51.78
⇑ 10.57
50.87
⇑ 12.33
49.32
⇑ 10.97
42.66
⇑ 17.89
44.67
⇑ 14.18
CODA-Prompt [ 53 ] + FL
0
57.40
⇑ 9.01
53.10
⇑ 9.25
52.90
⇑ 10.30
51.20
⇑ 9.08
47.30
⇑ 13.25
46.90
⇑ 11.95
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
0
65.21
⇑ 1.19
54.67
⇑ 7.68
61.05
⇑ 2.15
57.55
⇑ 2.74
57.81
⇑ 2.74
56.24
⇑ 2.61
TABLE III: Comparison results on the ImageNet-R dataset [ 66 ] under different class-incremental settings of FCL, where Imp. refers to the improvements.
Backbone
Methods
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 79 ]
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
39.74
⇑ 8.33
38.24
⇑ 7.58
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
45.11
⇑ 2.96
41.65
⇑ 4.17
PGP [ 43 ] + FL
40.51
⇑ 7.56
38.96
⇑ 6.86
MFCL [ 2 ]
40.37
⇑ 7.70
40.08
⇑ 5.74
PIP [ 37 ]
40.58
⇑ 7.49
43.79
⇑ 2.03
Powder [ 41 ]
41.45
⇑ 6.62
40.26
⇑ 5.56
TABLE IV: Comparisons on the Office dataset [ 47 ] under the domain-incremental setting of FCL, where Imp. refers to the improvements.
Backbone
Methods
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
67.20
⇑ 15.81
72.57
⇑ 3.37
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
79.71
⇑ 2.30
72.85
⇑ 3.09
PGP [ 43 ] + FL
64.23
⇑ 18.78
71.51
⇑ 4.43
MFCL [ 2 ]
73.37
⇑ 9.64
71.67
⇑ 4.27
PIP [ 37 ]
72.57
⇑ 10.44
74.33
⇑ 1.61
Powder [ 41 ]
72.15
⇑ 10.86
73.58
⇑ 2.36
TABLE V: Comparisons on the Digit dataset [ 29 ] under the domain-incremental setting of FCL, where Imp. refers to the improvements.
Variants
Base
Base+CT
Base+CL
Base+CT
Ours
+TR
+TR+DP
Modules
CT
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
TR
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
DP
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
SO
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
T=5
FAA
73.51
80.52
86.17
86.49
88.44
TABLE VI: Ablation studies under different class-incremental settings of FCL on the CIFAR-100 dataset [ 22 ] .
Fig. 4: Representation visualization of 10 randomly-selected classes from CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] when the backbone is Sup-21K [ 45 ] and T=10 .
Variants
Base
Base+CT
Base+CT
Base+CT
Ours
+TR
+TR+DP
Modules
CT
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
TR
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
DP
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
SO
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
T=5
FAA
70.89
82.60
84.09
84.70
85.20
TABLE VII: Ablation studies on the CUB-200 dataset [ 59 ] under different class-incremental settings of FCL.
Variants
Base
Base+CT
Base+CT
Base+CT
Ours
+TR
+TR+DP
Modules
CT
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
TR
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
DP
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
SO
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
FAA
41.59
45.11
46.88
47.08
48.07
TABLE VIII: Ablation on Office [ 47 ] under the domain-incremental setting of FCL.
Backbone
Variants
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
Powder [ 41 ]
57.70
⇑ 30.74
62.40
⇑ 13.20
Ours w/ IG
84.05
⇑ 4.39
73.26
⇑ 2.34
Ours w/ FI
85.62
⇑ 2.82
74.01
⇑ 1.59
Ours w/ TC
83.92
⇑ 4.52
72.79
⇑ 2.81
Ours-RandP
80.13
⇑ 8.31
71.64
⇑ 3.96
Ours-w/o TR
83.57
⇑ 4.87
73.05
⇑ 2.55
TABLE IX: Analysis of task relevance measure on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] when T=5 .
Backbone
Variants
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
Sup-21K [ 45 ]
Powder [ 41 ]
55.30
⇑ 32.34
58.00
⇑ 18.04
Ours w/ IG
84.46
⇑ 3.18
72.08
⇑ 3.96
Ours w/ FI
83.79
⇑ 3.85
72.30
⇑ 3.74
Ours w/ TC
84.50
⇑ 3.14
73.28
⇑ 2.76
Ours-RandP
80.35
⇑ 7.29
71.50
⇑ 4.54
Ours-w/o TR
82.56
⇑ 5.08
72.45
⇑ 3.59
TABLE X: Analysis of task relevance measure on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] when T=10 .
Task
Methods
FAA
Imp.
CAA
Imp.
T=5
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
70.54
⇑ 15.85
46.30
⇑ 28.03
CODA-Prompt [ 53 ] + FL
71.28
⇑ 15.11
56.49
⇑ 17.84
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
79.13
⇑ 7.26
55.18
⇑ 19.10
PGP [ 43 ] + FL 5
70.15
⇑ 16.24
46.72
⇑ 27.61
MFCL [ 2 ]
65.01
⇑ 21.38
69.13
⇑ 5.20
PIP [ 37 ]
65.45
⇑ 20.94
70.28
⇑ 4.05
TABLE XI: Comparisons on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] under the asynchronous FCL setting, where all methods use Sup-21K [ 45 ] as the backbone.
Fig. 5: Cluster visualization ( t≥2 ) grouped by radius-adaptive DBSCAN on CUB-200 [ 59 ] when the backbone is Sup-21K [ 45 ] and T=20 .
Fig. 6: Cluster visualization ( t≥2 ) grouped by radius-adaptive DBSCAN on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] when the backbone is Sup-21K [ 45 ] and T=5 .
Methods
#Params
Memory
#Comm
Training
Test
GLFC [ 13 ]
86.64M
351.63M
3465.63M
0.38s
0.05s
HFC [ 11 ] + FL
86.64M
351.63M
3465.63M
0.38s
0.05s
DualPrompt [ 65 ] + FL
1.04M
4.10M
41.65M
0.13s
0.05s
CODA-Prompt [ 53 ] + FL
0.93M
3.74M
37.28M
0.13s
0.05s
HiDe-Prompt [ 62 ] + FL
0.84M
3.38M
33.62M
0.21s
0.09s
PGP [ 43 ] + FL
1.04M
4.10M
41.65M
0.14s
0.05s
TABLE XII: Comparisons of computation complexity on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] under the Sup-21K backbone [ 45 ] when T=5 .
Heterogeneity
t=1
t=2
t=3
t=4
t=5
30%
60.50
60.72
61.60
66.61
77.03
40%
75.81
66.55
75.15
72.06
88.44
50%
76.80
72.37
77.80
80.75
89.07
60%
83.80
84.85
86.70
86.04
90.33
TABLE XIII: Analysis of heterogeneous data distributions on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] under the Sup-21K backbone [ 45 ] when T=5 .
Setting
Heterogeneity
t=2
t=3
t=4
t=5
Synchronous FCL
5%
17.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
10%
79.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
15%
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
20%
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
30%
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
40%
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
TABLE XIV: Task-boundary detection accuracy (%) of the proposed out-of-distribution detector on the CIFAR-100 dataset [ 22 ] under synchronous and asynchronous FCL settings, using Sup-21K [ 45 ] as the backbone and T=5 .
Fig. 7: Hyperparameter analysis of δe (a)(b)(c)(d) and nω (e)(f) on CIFAR-100 dataset [ 22 ] when T={5,10} .
Fig. 8: Task-wise convergence analysis on CIFAR-100 [ 22 ] (a) and CUB-200 [ 59 ] (b) when T=5 .