arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.04309

What Is the Influence of Task Order in Continual Learning? An Empirical Study and Order-Aware Evaluation for Motion Forecasting

Zirui Li·Yunlong Lin·Haohan Yang·Xiaocong Zhao·Chen Lv
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Aggregate scores for continual learning algorithms rest on a distribution over task orders that is rarely stated. We formulate algorithm comparison as an expectation over a declared order distribution, which separates training variation from order variation, and apply it to motion forecasting with four road-layout tasks from the INTERACTION dataset, all 24 task orders, four algorithms, and three training replicates (288 runs). Task order accounts for 65\% to 91\% of the variation in current-task error and backward transfer, and 90\% to 99\% of this order effect comes from the identity of the starting task: the smallest task cannot be learned from a cold start. Beyond the first stage, the order effect is comparable to training variability. In most orders, the leading algorithm in current-task error and backward transfer is within one replicate standard deviation of the runner-up. Backward transfer depends on the order mainly through its reference term, which weights the first task most heavily, so relative improvement and final error identify different leading algorithms for displacement error. A transition-direction descriptor computed from task statistics tracks the position of the smallest task, and weighting orders by it leaves the algorithm ranking unchanged. These results call for benchmarks that declare their order distribution and report order-resolved, starting-task-resolved, warm-start, and final errors alongside aggregate scores. The code and data are available \href{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/task-order-cl-4f7b/}{here}.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zirui Li, Yunlong Lin, Haohan Yang, Xiaocong Zhao, Chen Lv. 2026-11-03. What Is the Influence of Task Order in Continual Learning? An Empirical Study and Order-Aware Evaluation for Motion Forecasting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04309

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Subspace Node Pruning

Node pruning is the art of removing computational units such as neurons, filters, attention heads, or even entire layers to significantly reduce inference time while retaining network performance. In this work, we show that a broad family of importance measures, from activation-based to Fisher-based, share a common quadratic form. Through a lower-triangular change of basis, this form yields a pruning subspace in which entire nodes can be removed while the impact of the lost units is simultaneously recovered via linear least squares. Furthermore, the importance measures within our subspace are decoupled and additive through an orthogonalization of the layer activations, allowing multi-node pruning within layers without interference between importance scores. Our method, Subspace Node Pruning (SNP), outperforms the compared baselines on VGG-16 and ResNet-50 on ImageNet. On OPT-125M and LLaMA-2 7B, SNP matches the state-of-the-art LLM Surgeon at a 40-shot schedule and outperforms it whenever fewer shots are used, all without any retraining after pruning.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

On the growth of the parameters of approximating ReLU neural networks

This work focuses on the analysis of fully connected feed forward ReLU neural networks as they approximate a given, smooth function. In contrast to conventionally studied universal approximation properties under increasing architectures, e.g., in terms of width or depth of the networks, we are concerned with the asymptotic growth of the parameters of approximating networks. Such results are of interest, e.g., for error analysis or consistency results for neural network training. The main result of our work is that, for a ReLU architecture with state of the art approximation error, the realizing parameters grow at most polynomially. The obtained rate with respect to a normalized network size is compared to existing results and is shown to be superior in most cases, in particular for high dimensional input.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Correlations Are Ruining Your Gradient Descent

Natural gradient descent, and the preconditioned optimizers which have followed from it, correct gradient descent by estimating curvature and applying its inverse to the gradient. For any single layer of a deep neural network, this correction can be shown to approximately separate into two factors: one which accounts for correlations in the gradient signal, and one which accounts for correlations in the data arriving at that layer. Herein we show that this second factor can be expressed as a change of basis rather than of curvature and, considered thus, it can be removed from the optimizer entirely and placed within the network itself. Specifically, we show that, once forward weights are corrected, right-sided natural gradient descent can be implemented in a form which has three exactly equivalent forms: a gradient preconditioner, a decorrelating linear transform in the forward pass, or a set of recurrent dynamics in which all updates are Hebbian and rely only upon locally available signals. The (recurrent) decorrelation method we discover aligns closely with proposed methods for inhibitory learning and homeostatic plasticity in the brain. Notably, our transform requires no matrix inverse, no matrix decomposition, and no information beyond that which is available at an individual synapse. It can therefore be applied in distributed and physically constrained systems, including neuromorphic hardware and nervous systems, where existing preconditioners cannot. We demonstrate its effectiveness empirically in convolutional and residual network models while significantly improving a range of approximate biologically plausible methods for credit assignment.

cs.LG↗