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

Joao V. Cavalcanti

dblp:386/2188 · 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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Mathematical optimization
continuous optimization
0.912025
Adaptive backtracking line search · ICLR 2025
Mathematical optimization
convergence analysis
0.912025
Adaptive backtracking line search · ICLR 2025
Mathematical optimization
gradient descent
0.912025
Adaptive backtracking line search · ICLR 2025
Mathematical optimization
line search
0.912025
Adaptive backtracking line search · ICLR 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

descent lemma · 0.9backtracking line search · 0.9armijo condition · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Adaptive backtracking line search
abstract
Backtracking line search is foundational in numerical optimization. The basic idea is to adjust the step size of an algorithm by a {\em constant} factor until some chosen criterion (e.g. Armijo, Descent Lemma) is satisfied. We propose a novel way to adjust step sizes, replacing the constant factor used in regular backtracking with one that takes into account the degree to which the chosen criterion is violated, with no additional computational burden. This light-weight adjustment leads to significantly faster optimization, which we confirm by performing a variety of experiments on over fifteen real world datasets. For convex problems, we prove adaptive backtracking requires no more adjustments to produce a feasible step size than regular backtracking does. For nonconvex smooth problems, we prove adaptive backtracking enjoys the same guarantees of regular backtracking. %same lower bounds that step sizes produced by regular backtracking do. Furthermore, we prove adaptive backtracking preserves the convergence rates of gradient descent and its accelerated variant.
Joao V. Cavalcanti, Laurent Lessard, Ashia Wilson
ICLR1