Auto Seed Vl2 [DIRECT]

[4] Thengane, V., et al. (2023). Continual-CLIP: Fine-tuning CLIP for continual learning. CVPR Workshop.

Auto-Seed VL2 maintains a set of auto-generated seeds ( \mathcalS ) that grows slowly over tasks. Auto-Seed VL2 operates in three phases per task: (1) Seed replay, (2) Online adaptation, (3) Seed update. 4.1 Overall Architecture

: (1) Performance on highly structured tasks (e.g., VQA with relational reasoning) drops by 6% compared to exemplar replay. (2) The generator’s meta-update requires 5% of training data as a validation set – not always available. (3) Seed interpretability: unlike real images, seeds are opaque vectors. 8. Conclusion We presented Auto-Seed VL2, a framework for autonomous seed generation in vision-language continual learning. By synthesizing compact, cross-modal aligned seeds conditioned on task gradients, Auto-Seed VL2 eliminates the need for storing real data while achieving superior performance over replay-based methods. Our results demonstrate that synthetic embedding replay is a viable and often superior alternative to exemplar storage. Future work includes extending to online (single-pass) continual learning and exploring seed decomposition for compositional tasks. Acknowledgments [Redacted for blind review] References [1] Radford, A., et al. (2021). Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. ICML.

During continual learning, the model is trained sequentially on each task. After learning ( \mathcalT t ), the model should perform well on all seen tasks ( \mathcalT 1:t ) without access to previous data. We allow a small episodic memory ( M ) (size ( K )) that stores generated seeds , not real examples. auto seed vl2

[3] Zhou, K., et al. (2022). Learning to prompt for vision-language models. IJCV.

| Configuration | Avg Acc | Drop | |----------------------------------------|---------|------| | Full Auto-Seed VL2 | 82.2 | — | | w/o consistency loss (( \mathcalL \textconsist )) | 75.4 | -6.8 | | w/o gradient-conditioned generation (random seeds) | 68.9 | -13.3 | | w/o meta-update of ( G \phi ) | 74.1 | -8.1 | | w/o seed pruning (full memory) | 82.0 | -0.2 (ns) |

By generating seeds in embedding space rather than pixel space, we avoid the compounding errors of full image generation. The hypernetwork’s meta-learning objective ensures that seeds are discriminative for the original task and compatible with the continually updated VLM. [4] Thengane, V

[6] von Oswald, J., et al. (2020). Continual learning with hypernetworks. ICLR.

[2] Shin, H., et al. (2017). Continual learning with deep generative replay. NIPS.

: Auto-Seed VL2 outperforms all baselines, including ER-VLM with 10× more memory, and beats generative replay by over 13 points on average. The BLEU-4 score on C→F is particularly striking, indicating that generated seeds capture caption semantics well. 6.2 Ablation Study Removing components from Auto-Seed VL2 on C→R: CVPR Workshop

. A seed is a tuple ( s = (v, w) ), where ( v \in \mathbbR^d ) is a visual prototype and ( w \in \mathbbR^d ) is a textual prototype, such that for any example ( (x, y) ) from a past task, ( |f_I(x) - v| ) and ( |f_T(y) - w| ) are small, and ( \textsim(v, w) ) is high.

[7] Khattak, M. U., et al. (2023). MaPLe: Multi-modal prompt learning. CVPR.

[5] Zhang, Y., et al. (2024). VLM-CL: A benchmark for continual learning in vision-language models. NeurIPS Datasets Track.

The consistency loss and gradient-conditioned generation are crucial. Seed pruning is memory-efficient without hurting accuracy. We measure FWT: performance on task ( t ) after training on tasks ( 1..t-1 ). Auto-Seed VL2 achieves positive forward transfer (FWT = +4.1%) on VL-CL, meaning seeds from earlier tasks help learn new tasks. ER-VLM shows near-zero FWT; generative replay shows negative transfer due to noisy synthetic images. 7. Analysis and Discussion What do generated seeds encode? We project seeds into CLIP space and compare to real class means. The cosine similarity is 0.89 ± 0.05, indicating faithful representation. However, seeds are more “regularized” – they have lower variance along task-irrelevant directions.