aiqbench analysis
This research addresses the stability-plasticity dilemma in continual learning by proposing partial integration of task vectors to mitigate catastrophic forgetting during non-i.i.d. training sequences. The study demonstrates that scaling parameter displacements by intermediate factors yields superior average performance compared to full integration, particularly when models encounter prolonged exposure to specific data distributions. This method offers a practical optimization strategy for maintaining model robustness across diverse domains without sacrificing the ability to learn new information.
Task Vector Descent: Learning from Non-IID Batches
arXiv:2610.05402v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A central challenge in continual learning is to acquire new knowledge without forgetting what the model has already learned. This challenge appears in language model training when training data comes from various domain-, user-, or task-specific distributions that are encountered unevenly over time. In such settings, successive minibatches are temporally clustered by distribution instead of being sampled i.i.d. from the overall data mixture. Training on temporally clustered data induces a stability-plasticity tradeoff. Adapting the model to the active distribution can improve the model on the active distribution but may lead to a performance degradation on data it previously trained on. We find that this tradeoff intensifies with longer exposure to the same distribution. We therefore ask if the parameter displacement produced by such a sequence (the task vector) should be fully retained or applied partially. We compare applying the full displacement ($\lambda=1$) with partial integration, which scales the task vector by $\lambda$ before applying it to the continuing model and scales the optimizer state by the same coefficient. Across continual pretraining, pretraining from random initialization, supervised post-training, and reinforcement post-training, we find that intermediate values of $\lambda$ often improve average continuing-model performance relative to full integration, particularly after longer same-distribution sequences. In continual-pretraining experiments with both controlled streams and naturally defined adaptation sequences, task-vector scaling outperforms full integration at the matched learning rate, showing that its benefits are not reproduced by learning-rate scaling alone.
Abstract:A central challenge in continual learning is to acquire new knowledge without forgetting what the model has already learned. This challenge appears in language model training when training data comes from various domain-, user-, or task-specific distributions that are encountered unevenly over time. In such settings, successive minibatches are temporally clustered by distribution instead of being sampled i.i.d. from the overall data mixture. Training on temporally clustered data induces a stability-plasticity tradeoff. Adapting the model to the active distribution can improve the model on the active distribution but may lead to a performance degradation on data it previously trained on. We find that this tradeoff intensifies with longer exposure to the same distribution. We therefore ask if the parameter displacement produced by such a sequence (the task vector) should be fully retained or applied partially. We compare applying the full displacement ($\lambda=1$) with partial integration, which scales the task vector by $\lambda$ before applying it to the continuing model and scales the optimizer state by the same coefficient. Across continual pretraining, pretraining from random initialization, supervised post-training, and reinforcement post-training, we find that intermediate values of $\lambda$ often improve average continuing-model performance relative to full integration, particularly after longer same-distribution sequences. In continual-pretraining experiments with both controlled streams and naturally defined adaptation sequences, task-vector scaling outperforms full integration at the matched learning rate, showing that its benefits are not reproduced by learning-rate scaling alone.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.05402 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.05402v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.05402 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 332 words
Related coverage

When Partial Credit Opposes Completion
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 15, 2026

Challenge: Hand coding weights for efficient sequence memorisation
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 23, 2026

How controllers from industrial machinery can coordinate multitask machine learning
Amazon Science · Jul 30, 2026
Training and Finetuning Multi-Vector Embedding Models with Sentence Transformers
Hugging Face · Aug 26, 2026