Controllable Continual Test-Time Adaptation
Ziqi Shi, Fan Lyu, Ye Liu, Fanhua Shang, Fuyuan Hu, Wei Feng, Zhang, Zhang, Liang Wang

TL;DR
This paper introduces C-CoTTA, a novel method for continual test-time adaptation that controls domain shifts to prevent error accumulation and improve model robustness without access to source data.
Contribution
We propose a controllable approach to CTTA that explicitly prevents category encroachment and reduces sensitivity to domain shifts, addressing limitations of existing suppression-based methods.
Findings
C-CoTTA outperforms existing methods in accuracy during continual test-time adaptation.
Qualitative analyses confirm the theoretical advantages of controlling domain shifts.
The method reduces the impact of uncontrollable domain transformations on model performance.
Abstract
Continual Test-Time Adaptation (CTTA) is an emerging and challenging task where a model trained in a source domain must adapt to continuously changing conditions during testing, without access to the original source data. CTTA is prone to error accumulation due to uncontrollable domain shifts, leading to blurred decision boundaries between categories. Existing CTTA methods primarily focus on suppressing domain shifts, which proves inadequate during the unsupervised test phase. In contrast, we introduce a novel approach that guides rather than suppresses these shifts. Specifically, we propose ontrollable ntinual est-ime daptation (C-CoTTA), which explicitly prevents any single category from encroaching on others, thereby mitigating the mutual influence between categories caused by uncontrollable shifts. Moreover, our method…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Conference Withdrawn Submission
* Utilizing CAV for the problem of continual TTA * Proposing domain and class shift controlling losses * Improving performance on the state-of-the-art benchmarks
* Using pseudo-labels for prototype computation can lead to more error accumulation in real-world * Motivation for why CAV makes sense for continual TTA and not any deep learning problem, in general, is lacking * Comparisons with recent approaches such as EcoTTA [1], and BeCoTTA [2] are missing
The method demonstrates empirically plausible results, though with reservations that I describe in the weaknesses. Since this area is outside my expertise, I would defer to my fellow reviewers on the following: - The relevance of the benchmark tasks and datasets used in this work - The significance of the reported results - Any potential biases or issues in the experimental setup
The terms "guide" and "control" are vague. More precise language is needed to clearly convey the conceptual mechanism of C-CoTTA. Specifically, could the authors clarify whether the method is fundamentally maximising inter-class distances and minimising inter-domain distances in the representation space? This objective appears consistent with the aims of many test-time adaptation methods. Detailed technical explanation on how C-CoTTA differs from prior approaches would be beneficial, especially
1. The paper addresses a significant challenge in CTTA by proposing a method to control domain shifts, which is crucial for applications in dynamic environments. 2. The approach uses Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) to represent and control shift directions, which is a well-founded technique in interpretable AI.
1. Marginal Improvements: The reported improvements in classification accuracy are relatively marginal (0.6%, 0.4%, 0.5% on CIFAR-10C, CIFAR100-C, and ImageNet-C, respectively). This raises concerns about the practical significance and robustness of the proposed method. 2. Inconsistency in Compared Methods: There is a lack of consistency in the methods compared across different datasets. For instance, ViDA is only included in the ImageNet-C experiments but not in CIFAR experiments. Additionally,
The strength of this paper lies in introducing a new loss function to actively control domain shifts within the CTTA framework. This approach not only tackles error accumulation but also provides a way to maintain clear boundaries between classes during continual adaptation.
1. There are a lot of grammatical errors that hinder readers from concentrating on the paper. For example - Line 109: focuses ⇒ focus - Line 112: they are designed ⇒ they designed - Line 124: Andres et al. (2022). no parenthesis in the reference. - Line 157: refer to ⇒ refers to - Line 225: calculates ⇒ is calculated - Line 231: weird sentence - etc. Also, there are quite a lot of notational errors - eq 2: $\mathcal{X}_t$ and $\mathcal{X}_s$ are undefined - eq 3 and 4: inconsistent n
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFault Detection and Control Systems · Real-time simulation and control systems · Advanced Vision and Imaging
MethodsFocus
