Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Matan Tsipory

dblp:420/2534 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
continual learning
0.912025
Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression? · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convergence analysis
0.912025
Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression? · NeurIPS 2025
Robotics › Robot manipulation › robot programming
task sequencing
0.912025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression?
abstract
We 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
NeurIPS1