CDDP: Continual Learning of Multi-modal Dynamics

Introduction

No prior method could learn a dynamical system’s behavioral modes sequentially without either catastrophically forgetting earlier ones or requiring explicit mode labels at test time — two constraints that the standard continual learning fix of parameter transfer (Variational Continual Learning) cannot simultaneously satisfy for multi-modal dynamics. CDDP (Continual Dynamic Dirichlet Process) solves both by replacing parameter transfer with a neural episodic memory and a Dirichlet Process prior on attention weights, enabling automatic mode discovery and zero-forgetting transfer within a Bayesian State-Space Model.

This work was the second contribution of my Master’s thesis at Istanbul Technical University, published at L4DC 2024.

Problem Statement

Bayesian State-Space Models (BSSMs) can fit a single dynamical mode well but are not designed for continual multi-modal learning.
The standard continual learning fix, Variational Continual Learning (VCL), transfers posterior parameters from one task to the next as the new prior. For classification, this works; for dynamics, it fails because the shared parameter space cannot simultaneously represent modes with fundamentally different transition structures.
VCL also requires knowing which mode is active at test time, a strong and often unrealistic assumption.
Catastrophic forgetting: adapting to a new mode overwrites representations of earlier ones when only parameter transfer is used.
Gap: No prior method handles continual learning of sequential tasks with unknown, multi-modal dynamics without explicit mode labels or per-task network heads.

Methodology

CDDP augments a BSSM with two key components: a neural episodic memory of mode descriptors, and a Dirichlet Process (DP) prior on attention weights.

Memory-gated transition kernel: Given a context window of observations y_{1:C}, an encoder maps them to a query. Attention weights over R memory slots are computed via cosine similarity; the top-matching descriptor is retrieved and injected into the state transition kernel as an additional input, with no parameter transfer between tasks.

\[w_r(y_{1:C}, m_r) = \frac{e^{\langle m_r,\, e_\lambda(y_{1:C}) \rangle}}{\sum_{j=1}^{R} e^{\langle m_j,\, e_\lambda(y_{1:C}) \rangle}}\]

After observing a new task, memory is updated by a convex interpolation: high-similarity slots absorb the new mode; low-similarity slots are left largely unchanged, preserving old knowledge without parameter transfer.

Dirichlet Process prior (automatic mode discovery): The mixture weight π follows a GEM (stick-breaking) distribution with concentration α₀. Small α₀ concentrates mass on a few slots; large α₀ spreads mass broadly. The model never needs to be told how many modes exist.

Figure 1. CDDP overview. During inference, the context sequence y_1:C is encoded and matched against stored memory descriptors via cosine similarity. The Dirichlet Process prior induces a sparse attention distribution over R memory slots. The retrieved descriptor is injected into the transition kernel to predict y_C+1:T. Memory slots are updated online, with no parameter transfer between tasks.

Figure 2. Graphical model of CDDP. Left: R memory slots and their attention weights. Center: context observations encoded and matched to memory; the Dirichlet Process–weighted descriptor initializes the latent state. Right: the latent chain propagates forward and emits predictions y_C+1:T.

Training: the variational objective (ELBO) includes a KL term that aligns learned attention weights with the DP prior, encouraging sparse and interpretable mode assignments.

Results

Evaluated on 3 synthetic and 2 real-world multi-modal trajectory datasets, each structured as a continual learning sequence. The model sees tasks one at a time; no mode labels are given at test time.

Datasets

These datasets are not standard ML benchmarks; they are drawn from dynamical systems and human motion capture, each presenting a distinct type of multi-modal behavior:

Sine Waves — 1D oscillations $y_t = A\sin(2\pi f t)$ with 5 amplitude levels $A \in {3,6,9,12,15}$ and 3 frequency levels $f \in {\tfrac{2}{3}, 1, \tfrac{4}{3}}$, yielding 15 modes across 5 tasks. The simplest benchmark; modes differ in scale and oscillation rate.

Lotka-Volterra — classic predator-prey ordinary differential equation (ODE):

\[\frac{dx_t}{dt} = \alpha x_t - \beta x_t y_t, \qquad \frac{dy_t}{dt} = \delta x_t y_t - \gamma y_t\]

Eight modes generated by varying the biological parameters $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta)$ across 4 tasks. Sequence length 25, step size Δt = 0.4. Each mode produces qualitatively different oscillatory dynamics between prey (x) and predator (y) populations.

Lorenz Attractor — chaotic 3D system with sensitive dependence on initial conditions:

\[\frac{dx_t}{dt} = \sigma(y_t - x_t), \qquad \frac{dy_t}{dt} = x_t(\rho - z_t) - y_t, \qquad \frac{dz_t}{dt} = x_t y_t - \beta z_t\]

Twelve modes from different parameter triples $(\sigma, \rho, \beta)$ across 4 tasks. Sequence length 50, step size Δt = 0.01. This is the hardest synthetic benchmark: neighboring trajectories diverge exponentially, making mode identification from a short context window especially challenging.

Figure 3. Examples from the three synthetic datasets. Left: Sine Waves with different amplitude/frequency combinations (1D). Center: Lotka-Volterra predator-prey trajectories showing distinct oscillation cycles for different parameter settings (2D). Right: Lorenz Attractor chaotic trajectories projected from 3D, where each color corresponds to a different parameter mode.

Libras Movement — 2D hand-movement trajectories from 15 classes of Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS), captured via video at 45 frames per sequence. 5 tasks, 15 modes, 180 train / 180 test sequences. Modes correspond to distinct sign gestures with different spatial extents and trajectories.

Character Trajectories — 3-attribute stylus-pen trajectories (x position, y position, pen tip force) for 20 English characters, subsampled to length 109. 5 tasks, 20 modes, 1422 train / 1436 test sequences. The most challenging real-world dataset: 20 distinct character shapes with shared stroke primitives require fine-grained mode discrimination.

Figure 4. Real-world datasets. Left: hand-movement trajectories from the Libras dataset (Brazilian Sign Language), with each panel showing a different sign class. Right: stylus-pen character trajectories for selected English alphabet letters; modes correspond to distinct characters whose strokes share low-level primitives.

Dataset summary:

Type	Dataset	Tasks	Modes	Seq. Length	Attributes
Synthetic	Sine Waves	5	15	15	1
Synthetic	Lotka-Volterra	4	8	25	2
Synthetic	Lorenz Attractor	4	12	50	3
Real-world	Libras	5	15	45	2
Real-world	Character Trajectories	5	20	109	3

Quantitative Results

Metrics: AUC of NMSE and NLL plotted against tasks learned, averaged over 10 repetitions. Lower is better for both.

NMSE (Normalized MSE): prediction error relative to signal magnitude
NLL (Negative Log-Likelihood): calibration quality of the predictive distribution

Main results — AUC NMSE ↓ and AUC NLL ↓ (mean ± SE, 10 seeds). Lower is better.

Dataset	VCL-BSSM NMSE	CDDP NMSE	VCL-BSSM NLL	CDDP NLL
Sine Waves	1.00 ± 0.04	0.91 ± 0.03	3.57 ± 0.09	3.50 ± 0.09
Lotka-Volterra	0.58 ± 0.04	0.60 ± 0.06	1.50 ± 0.05	1.32 ± 0.08
Lorenz Attractor	0.26 ± 0.00	0.24 ± 0.01	4.42 ± 0.04	4.35 ± 0.06
Libras	0.14 ± 0.00	0.14 ± 0.00	-0.37 ± 0.02	-0.39 ± 0.04
Character Trajectories	0.87 ± 0.04	0.64 ± 0.01	0.14 ± 0.02	-0.19 ± 0.03

CDDP wins 4/5 on NMSE and 5/5 on NLL. Largest gain on Character Trajectories: −26% NMSE, NLL drops from 0.14 to −0.19 (better calibration).

Figure 3. CDDP predictions on Character Trajectories. Black = context window y_1:C (observed); colored = prediction y_C+1:T. CDDP correctly identifies the character mode from the short context and produces accurate trajectories across all 20 classes, without being told which character is being written.

Ablation on Sine Waves confirms that both learned memory content and the absence of parameter transfer are necessary for best performance. Fixed-initialization variants degrade monotonically with initialization magnitude; adding parameter transfer to CDDP does not help and slightly hurts NLL.

Conclusion

First study on continual learning of multi-modal dynamical systems, introducing both the problem formulation and the associated continual learning risk objective.
VCL-BSSM introduced as a strong parameter-transfer baseline for practitioners adapting continual classification methods to dynamics.
Memory beats parameter transfer: CDDP outperforms VCL-BSSM in 4/5 datasets on NMSE and 5/5 on NLL; memory preserves structure that shared parameters cannot represent simultaneously.
No mode labels required: the DP prior discovers the number of active modes automatically from data.
Broad applicability: the framework applies directly to weather forecasting (features transferred across climates), autonomous driving (adapting across countries), and model-based RL (handling environment changes from agent actions or external factors).

References

Akgül, A., Unal, G., & Kandemir, M. (2024). Continual Learning of Multi-modal Dynamics with External Memory. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC 2024). arXiv:2203.00936
Nguyen, C. V., Li, Y., Bui, T. D., & Turner, R. E. (2018). Variational Continual Learning. ICLR 2018.
Rangapuram, S. S., et al. (2018). Deep State Space Models for Time Series Forecasting. NeurIPS 2018.
Sethuraman, J. (1994). A constructive definition of Dirichlet priors. Statistica Sinica.
Graves, A., Wayne, G., & Danihelka, I. (2014). Neural Turing Machines. arXiv:1410.5401.
Kirkpatrick, J., et al. (2017). Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. PNAS.