Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matan Tsipory
dblp:420/2534
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Learning paradigms · 33% Robot manipulation · 33% Optimization for machine learning · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
continual learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression? · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convergence analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression? · NeurIPS 2025 |
Robotics › Robot manipulation › robot programming
task sequencing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression? · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
linear regression · 0.9kaczmarz method · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression?abstractWe analyze task orderings in continual learning for linear regression, assuming joint realizability of training data.
We focus on orderings that greedily maximize dissimilarity between consecutive tasks, a concept briefly explored in prior work but still surrounded by open questions.
Using tools from the Kaczmarz method literature, we formalize such orderings and develop geometric and algebraic intuitions around them.
Empirically, we demonstrate that greedy orderings converge faster than random ones in terms of the average loss across tasks, both for linear regression with random data and for linear probing on CIFAR-100 classification tasks.
Analytically, in a high-rank regression setting, we prove a loss bound for greedy orderings analogous to that of random ones.
However, under general rank, we establish a repetition-dependent separation.
Specifically, while prior work showed that for random orderings, with or without replacement, the average loss after $k$ iterations is bounded by $\\mathcal{O}(1/\\sqrt{k})$—we prove that single-pass greedy orderings may fail catastrophically, whereas those allowing repetition converge at rate $\\mathcal{O}(1/\\sqrt[3]{k})$.
Overall, we reveal nuances within and between greedy and random orderings. Matan Tsipory, Ran Levinstein, Itay Evron, Mark Kong, Deanna Needell, Daniel Soudry |
NeurIPS | 1 |