Ran Levinstein

LG
h-index74
3papers
11citations
Novelty58%
AI Score41

3 Papers

LGJan 20
Optimal L2 Regularization in High-dimensional Continual Linear Regression

Gilad Karpel, Edward Moroshko, Ran Levinstein et al.

We study generalization in an overparameterized continual linear regression setting, where a model is trained with L2 (isotropic) regularization across a sequence of tasks. We derive a closed-form expression for the expected generalization loss in the high-dimensional regime that holds for arbitrary linear teachers. We demonstrate that isotropic regularization mitigates label noise under both single-teacher and multiple i.i.d. teacher settings, whereas prior work accommodating multiple teachers either did not employ regularization or used memory-demanding methods. Furthermore, we prove that the optimal fixed regularization strength scales nearly linearly with the number of tasks $T$, specifically as $T/\ln T$. To our knowledge, this is the first such result in theoretical continual learning. Finally, we validate our theoretical findings through experiments on linear regression and neural networks, illustrating how this scaling law affects generalization and offering a practical recipe for the design of continual learning systems.

LGApr 6, 2025
From Continual Learning to SGD and Back: Better Rates for Continual Linear Models

Itay Evron, Ran Levinstein, Matan Schliserman et al.

We theoretically study the common continual learning setup where an overparameterized model is sequentially fitted to a set of jointly realizable tasks. We analyze the forgetting, i.e., loss on previously seen tasks, after $k$ iterations. For continual linear models, we prove that fitting a task is equivalent to a single stochastic gradient descent (SGD) step on a modified objective. We develop novel last-iterate SGD upper bounds in the realizable least squares setup, which we then leverage to derive new results for continual learning. Focusing on random orderings over $T$ tasks, we establish universal forgetting rates, whereas existing rates depend on the problem dimensionality or complexity. Specifically, in continual regression with replacement, we improve the best existing rate from $O((d-r)/k)$ to $O(\min(k^{-1/4}, \sqrt{d-r}/k, \sqrt{Tr}/k))$, where $d$ is the dimensionality and $r$ the average task rank. Furthermore, we establish the first rate for random task orderings without replacement. The obtained rate of $O(\min(T^{-1/4}, (d-r)/T))$ proves for the first time that randomization alone, with no task repetition, can prevent catastrophic forgetting in sufficiently long task sequences. Finally, we prove a matching $O(k^{-1/4})$ forgetting rate for continual linear classification on separable data. Our universal rates apply for broader projection methods, such as block Kaczmarz and POCS, illuminating their loss convergence under i.i.d. and one-pass orderings.

LGOct 22, 2025
Are Greedy Task Orderings Better Than Random in Continual Linear Regression?

Matan Tsipory, Ran Levinstein, Itay Evron et al.

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.