Paper: Latent Trajectory Learning for Limited Timestamps under Distribution Shift over Time (ICLR-2024)

Reviewer comment (Theory):
I doubt the existence of evolving dynamics. It's worth considering scenarios where time-related tasks might lack evolving patterns and instead exhibit random shifts.

Author response:
A1. We appreciate the thoughtful comments.  In cases where evolving dynamics aren't present, it aligns with the traditional Domain Generalization problem that's extensively discussed and explored in existing literature [1]. On the other hand, numerous real-world applications exhibit evolving dynamics. For instance: i) An ocular disease detection system requires an acquisition of evolving patterns across different ages to accurately predict outcomes for elder patients. ii) Self-driving systems contend with latent factors that shift over time, encompassing seasonal changes, varying weather conditions, and alterations in street environments. iii) Recommendation systems employed in fashion retail, where sales are influenced by temporal factors such as trends, weather, seasons, and more. This demonstrates that latent evolving patterns are pervasive in real-world scenarios.

Reviewer comment (Theory):
Linear interpolations may not reflect the true evolving trajectories, since the real evolving trajectories might be nonlinear and complex.

Author response:
A2. Yes, there are approximating errors between the linear interpolations and real samples. To mitigate such issues,
the interpolation rate $\lambda$ is drawn from the Beta distribution. By setting $\beta_1,\beta_2<1$ for the Beta-distributed $\lambda\sim\mathcal{B}(\beta_1,\beta_2)$, $\lambda$ tends to approach either $0$ or $1$. When $\lambda\rightarrow 1$, linear interpolation can be viewed as a first-order Taylor expansion around $\small(m+1)$ here
$$\hat{z}=(1-\lambda) z_{m}+\lambda z_{m+1}=z_{m+1} +[(m+\lambda)-(m+1)]\frac{z_{m+1}-z_{m}}{(m+1)-m}\approx z_{m+1}+(1-\lambda) f'(m+1)$$
where $z_m$ is parametrized by a function $f(m)$, $\frac{z_{m+1}-z_{m}}{(m+1)-m}$ approximates the first-order derivative. The aim is to minimize error by sampling $\lambda$ such that it approaches $1$, causing $(1-\lambda)$ to approach $0$. Conversely, if we expand around $m$, we tend to sample $\lambda$ closer to $0$ to minimize the approximation error. Overall, the approximating errors remain tolerable, as the interpolations show capabilities of improving learning evolving patterns and enhancing performance. Using mixup [2] as an example, an interpolation generated through a weighted sum of two samples from distinct domains doesn't exist in the real world. Despite this, it facilitates learning and functions effectively as a regularizer.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
Considering that IFGET is an approximation, and the existence of ground truth sample-to-sample correspondence is uncertain, how do we guarantee that IFGET accurately represents the real evolving trajectories?

Author response:
A3. The existence of evolving dynamics is normally decided by prior knowledge or expert knowledge. The ground truth sample-to-sample correspondence might not exist in the collected datasets, but the efficacy of IFGET learning is validated by its contribution to the acquisition of evolving representations, as demonstrated by Figure 2 and Figure 3 (d). For instance, in datasets such as the Ocular Disease dataset, where images of the same individual at different ages might be absent, we can search the possible sample by leveraging similar features existing in behaviors or symptoms. This enables the approximation of complete latent evolving trajectories effectively, filling in the absence left in the evolving path. 

On the other hand, the linear interpolation, being a first-order Taylor expansion, introduces approximation errors sailing as $\mathcal{O}(\Delta t^2)$, an error that remains tolerable. Furthermore, we have computed the Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the interpolations and the real samples on the Sine dataset in the table below. Using the identity function as the backbone, this table demonstrates that the approximation error remains relatively low.

Domain Interval |$(0,\frac{\pi}{24}]$    |$(\frac{\pi}{24},\frac{\pi}{12}]$|$(\frac{\pi}{12},\frac{\pi}{8}]$|$(\frac{\pi}{8},\frac{\pi}{6}]$|$(\frac{\pi}{6},\frac{5\pi}{24}]$|$(\frac{5\pi}{24},\frac{\pi}{4}]$  |$(\frac{\pi}{4},\frac{7\pi}{24}]$           |$(\frac{7\pi}{24},\frac{\pi}{3}]$           |$(\frac{\pi}{3},\frac{3\pi}{8}]$           |$(\frac{3\pi}{8},\frac{5\pi}{12}]$           |$(\frac{5\pi}{12},\frac{\pi}{2}]$           |
|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|MSE|0.352|0.401|0.125|0.210|0.302|0.148|0.136|0.167|0.195|0.371|0.531|

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
The authors conducted an ablation on weighting on IFGET; however, I am curious about the performance of IFGET without continuous interpolations, which will show whether continuous interpolations improve generalization to sparse timestamps.

Author response:
A4. We experiment with or without the interpolations utilized per iteration to assess their impact on RMNIST:


|           |130$^\circ$    |140$^\circ$|150$^\circ$|160$^\circ$|170$^\circ$|180$^\circ$  | AVG             |
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|w/o interpolation|69.6 $\pm$ 0.7 | 53.3 $\pm$ 0.9 | 47.7 $\pm$ 0.8 | 45.4 $\pm$ 0.8 | 39.8 $\pm$ 0.8 | 41.3 $\pm$ 0.7| 49.5 |
|w/ interpolation|75.1 $\pm$ 0.8|61.3 $\pm$ 0.9|49.8 $\pm$ 0.8|49.8 $\pm$ 0.9|39.7 $\pm$ 0.7|39.7 $\pm$ 0.9| 52.6|

The interpolations significantly improve the performance.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
I understand neural SDEs that neural SDEs do not rely on the assumption of the model being uni-modal, in contrast to prevelant uni-modal Gaussian distributions. However, most deep learning methods assume the classification tasks to exhibit uni-modal characteristics through using ERM classification loss. Therefore, I am wondering whether uni-modal or multi-modal classification loss contributes to the accuracy improvement of SDE-EDG in EDG.

Author response:
A5. We conduct the experiments with uni-modal and multi-modal classification loss respectively. The results reveal that the performance of the uni-modal approach closely resembled that of the multi-modal. The choice between the modalities often hinges upon the inherent characteristics of the datasets themselves. In real-world applications, employing cross-validation can be applied to determine the most suitable method to a specific dataset.

|       Datasets |RMNIST    |Portrait       | PowerSupply     
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|Uni|52.4 | 89.6 | 75.7|
|Multi|52.6|88.9|75.1

We have added this experimental result to our appendix.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
The computational costs of Neural SDEs, particularly regarding backward gradient propagation, are relatively high. However, this paper does not provide discussions of this aspect.

Author response:
A. We appreciate the thoughtful comments. The computational efficiency of the Vanilla SDE method can be time-consuming, but our implementation utilizing the "torchsde" package, as in [1], significantly saves computational resources. According to [1], the computational complexity of the neural SDE component in the SDE-EDG method is characterized by $\mathcal{O}\Big((M+L) D\Big)$, where $M$ is the number of source domains, $L$ is the number of target domains, and $D$ accounts for the number of parameters within the drift and diffusion neural networks.

Regarding the backward gradient propagation, "torchsde" leverages the adjoint method for gradient computation, for which an exact time complexity analysis is unavailable in literature to the best of our knowledge. We conduct experiments and record the runtime per iteration during the training phase. The below results indicate that SDE-EDG is not the fastest computational time among the considered methods. However, it's noted that SDE-EDG consistently outperforms both baselines, achieving an average accuracy improvement of at least 11.6% across all datasets.




|       Algos |DDA    |GI       | SDE-EDG     
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|RMNIST|0.19s | 2.80s | 0.27s|
|Portrait|0.77s|7.48s|0.31s

Reviewer comment (Writing):
Typos: in section 5.1, two repetitive "Ocular Disease".

Author response:
Thanks. We have fixed these typos in the revisions.

Reviewer comment (Presentation):
The illustration of continuous-interpolated samples is not very clear. I am a little bit confused about why the samples generated with linear interpolation method are called "continuous".

Author response:
A. We call it "continuous" because: For each interpolation, $\hat{z}=(1-\lambda)z_m+\lambda z_{m+1}$, $\lambda$ is sampled from a Beta distribution. Thus, $\lambda$ is expected to be any value between $(0,1)$ with possibility and hence it allow us to approximate any time moment between the $m$-th and $(m+1)$-th timestamps. We have made it clearer in the revisions (above Section 4.2).

Reviewer comment (Novelty):
What are the differences between continuous-interpolated samples and samples used in previous works?

Author response:
A1. Previous works use samples from a limited number ($M$) of source domains to train the temporal model (using LSTM [1] or temporal transition model [2]), potentially leading to overfitting issues. To tackle this issue, we propose the use of interpolated samples, creating a finer-grid latent trajectory, which facilitates the learning of evolving patterns.

Reviewer comment (Theory):
From my perspective, the interpolated samples are generated discretely. Thus, does the SDE-EDG method approximates the continuous case in the way of discretely sampling?

Author response:
A2. Yes. As mentioned in (A) above, given that the interpolation coefficient $\lambda$ ranges between $0$ and $1$, we consider the possibility of sampling data from any timestamp within the interval $[0,T]$. This enables us to view the trajectory as continuous.

Reviewer comment (Theory):
According to my understanding, Eq.(7) aims at learn a set of parameters for $f_k$ and $g_k$ so that the learned models can mimic the approximated trajectory of data. In my opinion, such operation relies heavily on the quality of data representations, especicially at the early phase of training, since the feature extractor $\phi$ is not well trained yet. Thus, in such case, will the linear interpolation results in some "bad interpolation"?

Author response:
A3. We appreciate your valuable comments. During the initial training stage, the interpolation unavoidably might not be precise approximations. However, as the training goes on, the model is updated and the representations gradually converge to optimal representations. This training process involves mutual interactions: The IFGET acts as a regularizer, preserving evolving information within the representations, as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figures 3 (d-e); Simultaneously, the representations contained the evolving dynamics in turn facilitate the learning of $f_k$ and $g_k$.  In typical classification tasks, initial representations may not be optimal but are still utilized for training the classification head (often an MLP). Eventually, all components in SDE-EDG converge towards an optimum due to the benefits of the end-to-end training protocol.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
According to the ablation study, the hyper-parameter $\alpha$ seems sensitive for different datasets. Since $\alpha$ scale the magnitude of $\mathcal{L}_{mle}$ that plays the role of regularizer, could you explain such phenomenon?

Author response:
A4. In the ablation study, the hyperparameters were varied within a wide range $\{0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 200\}$, causing notable fluctuations in the results. On the other hand, within the range of $\alpha \in [1, 10]$, the model's performance remains relatively steady (in Figure 4 (d,e)). The subsequent ablation experiments on RMNIST further shows the stable performance by setting $\alpha = \{0.8, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9\}$:
|       $\alpha$        |130$^\circ$    |140$^\circ$|150$^\circ$|160$^\circ$|170$^\circ$|180$^\circ$  | AVG             |
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|0.8|72.7 $\pm$ 0.7 | 59.8 $\pm$ 0.7 | 49.6 $\pm$ 0.8 | 49.2 $\pm$ 0.7 | 37.9 $\pm$ 0.8 | 39.5 $\pm$ 0.6| 51.5 |
|1|75.1 $\pm$ 0.8|61.3 $\pm$ 0.9|49.8 $\pm$ 0.8|49.8 $\pm$ 0.9|39.7 $\pm$ 0.7|39.7 $\pm$ 0.9| 52.6|
|3|73.7 $\pm$ 0.8 | 58.8 $\pm$ 0.8 | 48.6 $\pm$ 0.7 |45.9 $\pm$ 0.7 | 40.7 $\pm$ 0.8 | 39.3 $\pm$ 0.5| 51.2|
|5|73.6 $\pm$ 0.7 | 58.1 $\pm$ 0.8 | 48.3 $\pm$ 0.9 | 42.7 $\pm$ 0.8| 39.0 $\pm$ 0.9 | 39.7 $\pm$ 0.7 | 50.2
|7|76.7 $\pm$ 0.7| 63.1 $\pm$ 0.9 |50.5 $\pm$ 0.8 | 41.8 $\pm$ 0.9 | 39.0 $\pm$ 0.8 | 39.1 $\pm$ 0.7|51.7|
|9       |73.7 $\pm$ 0.8|59.8 $\pm$ 0.7|47.9 $\pm$ 0.8|44.0 $\pm$ 0.7| 39.4 $\pm$ 0.7| 38.5 $\pm$ 0.6| 50.6|

In practice, we select hyperparameter $\alpha$ based on the validation set. Without employing cross-validation, we still can set $\alpha = 1$ yields consistent results shown in Figure 4 (d,e). We have added this experimental result to our appendix.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
In one iteration, for two consecutive domains, only one interpolated sample is generated. Can more than one sample be generated and used? For example, we can first generate one interpolated sample via Eq.5 and then set this sample as $\tilde{z}_{m+1}$ to generate the second sample. If so, how does this influence the performance?

Author response:
Sorry for causing the misunderstanding.  We have clarified this in the Equation 5 of the revisions. In practice, we generate an interpolation for each sample pair within the sampled batch of size $N_B$, resulting in $N_B$ interpolations per iteration. 

Interpolating twice to generate the second sample is equivalent to generating the interpolation once. Specifically, if we denote the second sample resulting from interpolation twice as:

$${\hat z_{twice}}=( 1 - \lambda_2) z_m+ \lambda_2 {\hat z_{m+1}} =(1-\lambda_2)z_{m}+ \lambda_2 [(1-\lambda_1) z_m+\lambda_1 z_{m+1}] =(1-\lambda_1\lambda_2)z_m+\lambda_1\lambda_2 z_{m+1}$$

where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are two interpolation rates for the first and second interpolated samples. Taking $\lambda_1\lambda_2=\lambda_3$, interpolating twice to generate the second sample is equivalent to generating the first sample with an interpolation rate of $\lambda_3$.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
Table 2 shows that smaller temporal gaps improve the generalization ability. How is the improvement of SDE-EDG over the baseline when using different time intervals?

Author response:
The experiments applying various intervals on RMNIST for the baselines show: 1. Smaller time intervals generally enhance the performance of all methods. 2. With different intervals, our method, SDE-EDG, consistently outperforms the other baselines.
|  interval= $\Delta t/2$           |130$^\circ$    |140$^\circ$|150$^\circ$|160$^\circ$|170$^\circ$|180$^\circ$  | AVG             |
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|ERM|60.7 $\pm$ 0.9 | 46.6 $\pm$ 0.8 | 39.4 $\pm$ 0.8| 38.3 $\pm$ 0.8 | 39.8 $\pm$ 0.6 | 41.0 $\pm$ 0.8| 44.3 |
|LSSAE|65.5 $\pm$ 0.8|52.6 $\pm$ 0.8|45.2 $\pm$ 0.8|39.0 $\pm$ 0.8|40.1 $\pm$ 0.7|41.1 $\pm$ 0.9| 47.3|
|SDE-EDG (ours)|__75.6 $\pm$ 0.8__|**61.8 $\pm$ 0.8**|**49.9 $\pm$ 0.8**|**50.0 $\pm$ 0.9**|**45.1 $\pm$ 0.7**|**44.1 $\pm$ 0.9** | __54.4__|


|  interval= $2\Delta t$           |130$^\circ$    |140$^\circ$|150$^\circ$|160$^\circ$|170$^\circ$|180$^\circ$  | AVG             |
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|ERM|47.2 $\pm$ 0.8 | 37.9 $\pm$ 0.8 | 32.9 $\pm$ 0.8| 34.9 $\pm$ 0.7 |38.1 $\pm$ 1.0 | __43.8 $\pm$ 0.7__| 39.1 |
|LSSAE|49.3 $\pm$ 0.9|38.8 $\pm$ 0.8|34.9 $\pm$ 0.8|37.8 $\pm$ 0.9 |__40.6 $\pm$ 0.8__|40.7 $\pm$ 0.8| 40.4|
|SDE-EDG (ours) |__58.6 $\pm$ 0.8__|__49.1 $\pm$ 0.7__|__45.6 $\pm$ 0.7__|__42.4 $\pm$ 0.8__|36.9 $\pm$ 0.8|36.1 $\pm$ 0.8|__44.8__|

We have added the experimental results to our appendix.

Reviewer comment (Novelty):
Learning neural SDEs is traditionally successfully presented in the framework of variational Bayesian inference (e.g. Li et al. 2020), where stochastic gradient descent methods are applied to minimize the evidence lower bound (ELBO). I wonder why the authors do not clearly address the reference to variational Inference in the manuscript, especially since the indications (e.g., the graphical model in Figure 1, derivation of the likelihood loss of IFGET in Lemma B.1) are given.

Author response:
A1. Thank you for your insightful comments. We admit in SDE models, variational inference is commonly employed, allowing the assumption of a prior distribution for the diffusion term, such as the Ornstein–Uhlenbec (OU) process or Wiener process. This serves as a regularization technique, mitigating overfitting by regularizing the diffusion term. We also highlighted this in the final line of page 2 within Section 2 (Related Works) and we revised the last sentence of Section 2 to stress this point.

On the other hand, we also note that variational inference is not a mandatory requirement for optimizing SDE models [2, 3, 4]. Maximum likelihood, a widely used method, is also applicable for optimizing SDEs [2, 4]. In SDE-EDG method, we indeed adopted maximum likelihood rather than variational inference. 

The graphical models depicted in Figure 1 of our paper and Figure 4 in [1] serve similar purposes. Their roles are not related to variational inference but rather illustrate the generative process of the data. Lemma B.1 also shows the derivation of maximum likelihood, not the ELBO in variational inference.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
The Sine experiment (Figure 3) is arguably a rather simple problem from a dynamic point of view and yet already indicates the limited extrapolation quality of the approach. Of course, this reduces my confidence in the generalization ability of the approach. I suspect possible causes in (i) an unfavorable modeling of drift and diffusion coefficients and (ii) that the linear interpolation approach in the IFGET module is too coarse. Can you comment on this?

Author response:
A2. We appreciate the valuable comment. The cause is not modeling or interpolation method, but the EDG setup of the Sine dataset in our experiments making the task very challenging. We follow the setup of LSSAE [5], where we divide a complete sine $[0,2\pi]$ into 24 domains, each spanning $\frac{\pi}{12}$. Most importantly, sine in EDG experiments only has 12 domains $[0,\pi)$ for training, $[\pi, \frac{4\pi}{3})$ for validation, $[\frac{4\pi}{3},2\pi]$ for reporting test results. This means we train the model using only half of the sine instead of the entire period of the sine curve, which makes the task significantly more challenging. 

From Table 6 in the appendix, the results of Sine show that under this setting, none of the methods can generalize well to unseen domains, especially when the test domains are far away from the training domains. However, our method SDE-EDG shows performance improvement by 0.8% compared to the best baseline.

In Figure 3(d), where we illustrate the latent paths learned by the SDE component, we set the backbone as the identity function and the hidden dimension to $2$ for better visualization compared to the original Sine. However, for the experiments reported in Table 1, we apply a hidden dimension of $32$, as indicated in Table 12 of the appendix. This leads to better fitting capabilities and better generalization than what Figure 3(d) displays especially for the test domains that are close to the training domains.

Reviewer comment (Novelty):
The IGET module reminds me on an approach by Kidger et al. 2020 (Neural Controlled Differential Equations for Irregular Time Series) in which the authors also try to improve the learning of latent trajectories by including interpolated sample trajectories, in their terms a "controlled path”. This is done in the ODE setting, but can be integrated into the SDE setting if the approach is applied to learning the drift coefficient. Can you explain in more detail how your approach differs?

Author response:
A3.  We highlight distinctions between [6] and our approach SDE-EDG in four aspects. 

1. Interpolation is applied for different purposes: [6] aims to obtain gradients via interpolations, but we aim to obtain augmentations from unseen timestamps. More specifically, [6] employing a spline method to approximate the trajectories of $X$, and computing gradients from the derivative of the spline function. In contrast, SDE-EDG utilizes interpolations as augmentations to enhance the learning of latent trajectories, aiming to mitigate overfitting to limited timestamps.

2. Different problem scope: [6] focuses on predicting the labels $Y$ based on the whole time series $( X_1,\ldots,X_M)$, which is a time-series classification task. Conversely, in EDG setup, SDE-EDG aims to utilize latent temporal patterns learned from $\(X_t,Y_t)$, $t=1,\ldots,M$ collected from the seen timestamps to improve predictions of $Y$ based on observations of $X$ in future timestamps.

3. Interpolate in different spaces: [6] utilizes interpolation on $X$ within the original space, whereas SDE-EDG employs interpolation on $Z$ within the latent space. The choice of interpolating $Z$ offers potential advantages in capturing the underlying evolving dynamics of the data generation process compared to the original observations $X$.

4. We adopt different interpolation techniques: SDE-EDG uses direct linear interpolation to reduce time computational complexity, while [6] employs cubic spline interpolations.

Additionally, our novelty doesn't lie in the interpolation method itself; rather, it lies in addressing overfitting to sparse timestamps through interpolations and effectively capturing evolving dynamics by constructing IFGET under EDG settings.

Reviewer comment (Theory):
(p.3) Do you assume all source domains have the same sample size $N$ or can it vary?

Author response:
A1. For simplicity in notation, we use the same symbol $N$ for source domains. Empirically, this value can actually vary in each domain. In other words, we do not assume the same sample size $N$ in our algorithm implementation.

Reviewer comment (Writing):
(p.4) You repeat here (unnecessarily, in my opinion) the argument of "sample complexity", which already appeared on p. 1. However, I would like to ask if you could explain this argument in more detail?

Author response:
A2. Thanks for your valuable feedback. We have deleted this sentence in Section 4.1 in revisions. We use the sample complexity as a support to our motivation. The sample complexity, with a smaller number of timestamps $M$, leads to **a looser generalization bound**, showed by the complexity term $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{1/M})$. This indicates that **overfitting occurs when the model learns from a limited number of timestamps**. In light of this, our proposed IFGET involves interpolation between timestamps to generate approximations that act as augmentation from different unseen intermediate timestamps.

Reviewer comment (Writing):
(p.4) Can you define $N_B$?

Author response:
A3. $N_B$ denotes the number of samples for a batch in a training iteration. We define it below the Equation 4.

Reviewer comment (Theory):
(p.4) Why do you choose to draw the interpolation rate $\lambda$ from a Beta distribution?

Author response:
A4. Beta-distribution is verified for linear interpolation in literature [8, 9]. In SDE-EDG, $\lambda$ thereby will have higher chances to be close to either $0$ or $1$ by sampling from Beta distribution, leading to a more accurate approximation. By choosing $\beta_1,\beta_2<1$ of Beta-distribution $\lambda\sim\mathcal{B}(\beta_1,\beta_2)$, $\lambda$ is closer to $0$ or $1$. When $\lambda\rightarrow 1$, we can regard linear interpolation as the first order Taylor expansion at $\small(m+1)$ here
$$\hat{z}=(1-\lambda) z_{m}+\lambda z_{m+1}=z_{m+1} +[(m+\lambda)-(m+1)]\frac{z_{m+1}-z_{m}}{(m+1)-m}\approx z_{m+1}+(1-\lambda) f'(m+1)$$
where $z_m$ is parametrized by a function $f(m)$,  $\frac{z_{m+1}-z_{m}}{(m+1)-m}$ approximates the first-order derivative. Since it is an approximation, we aim to reduce the approximation error by sampling $\lambda\rightarrow 1$ and thus $(1-\lambda)\rightarrow 0$. On the other hand, if we expand on $m$, we tend to sample $\lambda$ closer to $0$ to minimize the approximation error.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
How many interpolation points are generated between two consecutive data points, i.e., how many $\lambda$'s are drawn; am I right in assuming that only one is drawn? Would an increase in the number of intermediate points result in better performance?

Author response:
Yes, we generate one interpolation in each training iteration and utilize a single $\lambda$ to maintain computational efficiency through batch operations on CUDA. While employing interpolations helps mitigate overfitting, it's essential to find a balanced tradeoff. Increasing the number of interpolations may introduce accumulated approximation errors between interpolated and real samples, causing a decline in performance. This claim is substantiated by the experimental results on RMNIST presented below. We vary the number of interpolations (0&#8594;1&#8594;3) applied in each iteration to assess its impact.


|        Num of Interp        |130$^\circ$    |140$^\circ$|150$^\circ$|160$^\circ$|170$^\circ$|180$^\circ$  | AVG             |
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|0|69.6 $\pm$ 0.7 | 53.3 $\pm$ 0.9 | 47.7 $\pm$ 0.8 | 45.4 $\pm$ 0.8 | __39.8 $\pm$ 0.8__ | __41.3 $\pm$ 0.7__| 49.5 |
|1|__75.1 $\pm$ 0.8__|61.3 $\pm$ 0.9|49.8 $\pm$ 0.8|__49.8 $\pm$ 0.9__|39.7 $\pm$ 0.7|39.7 $\pm$ 0.9| __52.6__|
|2|74.2 $\pm$ 0.7 | __61.4 $\pm$ 0.8__ | __50.8 $\pm$ 0.9__|47.0 $\pm$ 0.8 | 37.7 $\pm$ 0.8 | 38.7 $\pm$ 0.7| 51.6|
|3|74.5 $\pm$ 0.7 | 61.3 $\pm$ 0.9 | 48.2 $\pm$ 0.8 | 45.9 $\pm$ 0.8| 36.7 $\pm$ 0.8 | 37.8 $\pm$ 0.7 | 50.7

This suggests the importance of maintaining a balanced ratio between real samples and interpolations, ideally at 1:1 to 1:2. Otherwise, the model might prioritize fitting the approximations over the real samples. We have added the experimental results to our appendix.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
Neural SDEs are known to be very resource consuming. Can you assess the runtime complexity, for example?

Author response:
Yes, Vanilla SDE can be time-consuming. In our implementation, to improve efficiency and reduce the computational time, we adopt "torchsde" package from [1]. According to [1], the computational complexity of the neural SDE component in SDE-EDG method is $\mathcal{O}\Big((M+L) D\Big)$, where $M$ is the number of source domains, $L$ is the number of target domains, and $D$ is the number of parameters of the drift and diffusion neural networks. 

We conduct experiments and record the runtime per iteration during the training phase. The below results indicate that SDE-EDG is comparable among the considered methods, and both our SDE-EDG and DDA are much faster than GI. On the other hand, we can not ignore that SDE-EDG consistently outperforms both baselines, achieving an average accuracy improvement of at least 11.6% across all datasets.
|       Algos |DDA    |GI       | SDE-EDG     
|:-------:|:----------------------------:|:--------------------------:|:--------------------------:|
|RMNIST|__0.19s__ | 2.80s | 0.27s|
|Portrait|0.77s|7.48s|__0.31s__

We have added the experimental results to our appendix.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
(Figure 4(c)) Can you assess what happens at Domain Index 29; why does SDE-EDG show a reduction in performance?

Author response:
A7. The performance tends to decrease for domains that are further away from the source domains due to the accumulation of approximation errors. Since the domain is distant from the source domains, the learned evolving patterns are less reliable.