Continual Adaptation Across Modalities: Learning and Forgetting in Unified Multimodal Models
Authors: Xinrui Wang, Zhihao Chen, Jia Tang, Alexandra Gomez-Villa, Bartlomiej Twardowski, Joost van de Weijer, Songcan Chen
Organizations: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics · Computer Vision Center, Barcelona · EPFL · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Universitat Aut`onoma de Barcelona · IDEAS Research Institute
Unified multimodal models (UMMs), which can process and generate diverse modalities within a single framework, have recently emerged as a powerful paradigm. However, when these models undergo continual learning on multiple tasks across different modalities, their learning and forgetting dynamics remain poorly understood. In this paper, we systematically investigate how architectural design and adaptation method shape intra-modal learning and cross-modal interference between the generation and understanding sides. Specifically, we report three findings. First, the severity of cross-modal interference decreases with the degree of modality-specific parameter isolation. Second, a within-model asymmetry: the generation side of a UMM is markedly more fragile than its understanding side. Third, what post-training adds is the first to be forgotten: purely post-training capabilities such as personalized generation collapse by 84% to 90%, while pretraining capabilities remain stable. Together, these results clarify how parameter isolation and post-training fragility shape UMMs' learning and forgetting dynamics, offering a starting point for developing continually evolving UMMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The four UMM architectures studied (Chameleon, OmniDiffusion, JanusPro and BAGEL), redrawn in simplified unified style and ordered by parameter coupling (high to low).
Figure 2: Cross-modal interference in UMMs. Left: Inter-modal interference. Top : generation to understanding. Middle : understanding to generic generation. Bottom : understanding to personalized generation. Right: personalized concept generations before and after the seven sequential understanding tasks (rows: reference image, generation before and after understanding training).
Figure 3: Intra-modal performance matrices (Understanding). Lower-triangle score matrices across the 7 continual understanding tasks: each column shows the state after one more trained task, so the main diagonal reflects forward plasticity and entries below it reflect retention (backward transfer). The MMBench/MMMU rows track general understanding via zero-shot probes, and the BWT row summarizes forgetting on the trained tasks, averaging the final score minus the score right after that task’s training (the diagonal). The probe row reports each probe’s final score minus its zero-shot baseline, tracking general understanding.
Figure 4: Mean generation quality of the first personalized concept (Q-Align, Q-Quality, CLIP-T, and CLIP-I) as the remaining 18 DreamBooth concepts are learned in sequence, per model.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Learning rate
LoRA rank
LoRA α
Epochs
LoRA target modules
Chameleon
1e-4
16
32
1
q/k/v/o
OmniDiffusion
2e-5
16
32
1
q/k/v/o
JanusPro 7B
2e-4
16
32
1
q/k/v/o + aligner
BAGEL
2e-5
32
64
1
q/v/o/gate/up/down (no k_proj)
Appendix
Table 1: Sequential understanding: seven tasks trained in a fixed order, each on its training split. Within each model, all seven tasks share one configuration.
Model
Method
Concepts
Token num
Learning rate
LoRA rank
LoRA α
Steps
Chameleon
Dreambooth
19
–
3e-5
16
32
100
Chameleon
YoPrompt
19
16
1e-3
–
–
4000
OmniDiffusion
Dreambooth
19
–
2e-5
16
32
800
OmniDiffusion
YoPrompt
19
16
1e-3
–
–
6000
JanusPro 7B
Dreambooth
19
–
1e-5
16
32
1000
JanusPro 7B
YoPrompt
19
16
5e-3
–
–
4000
Appendix
Table 2: Personalized generation: continual concept-by-concept training on 6 to 10 images per concept [ 1 ] , with a fixed number of steps per concept. YoPrompt optimizes a 16-token soft prompt instead of LoRA (marked –).
Axis
Metric
Protocol
Understanding, VQA
Accuracy (%)
six VQA benchmarks
Understanding, caption
SPICE ×100
vizwiz
Understanding, general
Accuracy (%)
MMBench, MMMU as evaluation points
Generation
CLIP-I, CLIP-T
identity and text alignment
Generation
Q-Align, Q-Quality
semantic consistency and visual quality
Appendix
Table 3: Evaluation protocols.
Model
vizwiz
Fin
Sci
Med
RS
AD
OCR
MMBench
MMMU
Avg (VQA)
Bagel
16.00
60.07
86.32
46.84
49.42
29.04
85.58
87.98
52.60
59.55
JanusPro 7B
9.31
68.02
56.11
25.03
31.80
16.35
49.37
84.82
32.18
41.11
Chameleon
7.47
57.55
9.41
16.70
35.04
24.69
10.40
37.63
24.89
25.63
OmniDiffusion
3.76
48.06
40.83
26.22
35.45
24.85
5.07
50.94
23.11
30.08
Appendix
Table 4: Understanding across all seven tasks and the general benchmarks.
Figure 5: Per-task mean of the stage-over-stage Δ at and after each task’s own training stage.
Figure 6: Generic generation performance before vs. after understanding, averaged across all concepts. Evaluated on 100 complex-conditioned text-to-image prompts (generated by an LLM).
Figure 7: Generic generation before vs. after the seven understanding tasks. Each row shows one of the 10 representative prompts from the 100-prompt evaluation set, printed in full at the row head; columns are the four models, each with before- and after-understanding panels.
Figure 8: Personalized generation quality, averaged across all 19 concepts.
Figure 9: DreamBooth personalized generation before vs. after the seven understanding tasks, per model and metric (0–1 scale). Chameleon and JanusPro average 3 concepts (pre to T6, no re-personalization); BAGEL and OmniDiffusion average 19 concepts.
Figure 10: YoPrompt personalized generation before vs. after the seven understanding tasks, per model and metric (0–1 scale), averaged over 19 concepts.
Figure 11: Per-concept DreamBooth generations before vs. after the seven understanding tasks, all four models (three concepts each, coupling order), reference image on top of each column.
Figure 12: Per-concept YoPrompt generations before vs. after the seven understanding tasks, all four models (three concepts each, coupling order), reference image on top of each column.
Figure 13: Sequential generation, visualized. Generated images of the first personalized concept at successive DreamBooth checkpoints: after the 1st concept (the target itself, bo for Chameleon, brody for JanusPro, emma for BAGEL and will for OmniDiffusion) and after the 2nd, 4th, 11th and 19th concepts of the sequence were learned. Rows are models, with the reference image on the far left of each row.
Unified multimodal models (UMMs) can integrate understanding and generation within a single backbone. However, it is commonly known that these two capabilities can cause conflicting representations, leading to a central question: how representation and computation should be shared across functionalities? Existing UMMs often rely on a largely fixed structure, where different inputs and functionalities follow the same depth and parameter-sharing pattern. We argue that this assumption is too restrictive: more effective unification requires sharing the computation that supports cross-functional communication while specializing the capacity that becomes task- or input-specific. We introduce FlexUMM, a flexible UMM framework that dynamically decides when to preserve shared computation, when to route specialized capacity, and when to stop further processing. Evidence shows that this flexible allocation improves UMMs along two complementary axes. It improves accuracy by reducing harmful competition between functionalities, and it improves efficiency by avoiding unnecessary computation once an input representation is sufficiently mature. Beyond simple architectural unification from the pre-trained models, FlexUMM works as a model-agnostic, functional plug-in to make existing UMMs more unified, stronger, and efficient. Code is available at: https://github.com/AIFrontierLab/TorchUMM/tree/main/src/umm/post_training/flexumm.
Yinyi Luo, Haoyue Bai, Yi Ge +3
Carnegie Mellon University · William & Mary · University of Maryland
Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) integrate image understanding and generation within a single architecture, yet how the two tasks interact remains understudied. We investigate transferability in UMMs: whether training a capability on one task improves the same capability on the other without explicit supervision. Through controlled experiments, we empirically find that transferability depends on architecture-models with fully shared transformer backbone and a unified visual encoder exhibit consistent cross-task transfer, while loosely coupled designs show little or none. Leveraging this transferability, we propose a practical training strategy. The most straightforward way to improve a target generative capability (e.g., counting) is to fine-tune generation directly, but this can degrade visual quality due to distribution shift. Instead, we train the corresponding understanding task and let it transfer into generation, which improves capability-specific generative performance while minimizing distribution shift. We validate this across three capabilities-counting, spatial relation, and text recognition/generation-showing that cross-task transferability can be systematically exploited in UMMs.
Jiwon Kang, Heeji Yoon, Jaewoo Jung +5
KAIST AI, South Korea · Blynx, South Korea · Trillionlabs, South Korea
Unified multimodal models (UMMs) are motivated by the hope that understanding and generation reinforce each other but controlled ablations repeatedly find that adding a generation objective leaves understanding flat. Joint-training studies cannot settle the disagreement: with overlapping supervision, a gain cannot be attributed to the architecture rather than the data. To further investigate the relationship between the two directions in UMMs, we separate them by construction. A novel visual entity, a rendered 3D asset paired with a pseudo-word screened for absence from the frozen model's behavior, is bound through exactly one task direction, and the untrained direction is then measured. We find that the channel is real in both directions, but the directions differ in kind: generation training installs a name the model can only match among candidates; understanding training installs one it can also produce. What governs cross-task usability is where the binding enters the shared computation. An alignment probe predicts export across 36 configurations (Spearman ρ=+0.68). That objective's alignment term, maximized in closed form over activations with every weight frozen, makes a concept drawable when injected at layer 7 of 28 and is indistinguishable from the base model from layer 14 on, while the weight-based version of the same edit peaks at layers 10-14. In an observational series of four models, this window appears only where the understanding pathway is a semantic vision encoder, suggesting that unified weights are not enough: the two directions must share a semantic format at the entry point. Exploiting the rule, a mid-stack alignment objective acquires the concept for a 0.1% relative loss of the model's general text-to-image ability, against 41% for the standard generative route. Our code is at https://github.com/Zane-ZYQiu/entry-point-umm.
Zongyang Qiu, Yihan Wu, Kaixuan Fan +2
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Columbia University · MMLab, CUHK +1