REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 19 references
Algorithm Design for Continual Learning in IoT Networks
T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper proves that choosing the order in which an agent visits tasks in an IoT network—not just how it trains—can be optimized with provable 3/2 and 3/2+r^{1-T} approximation ratios, despite the NP-hardness of the joint task-ordering…
desk verdict A novel routing-plus-forgetting CL formulation with a mostly sound approximation algorithm, but all guarantees are for the upper-bound surrogate and one proof has an invalid step. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The argument runs through two pieces. First, closed-form expectations of the forgetting loss (Lemmas 1 and 2) convert the unknown ground-truth parameters into the known dissimilarity bounds $\Delta_{i,j}$ and $\Delta_{i,0}$, leaving an objective that is a weighted Hamiltonian path over regions plus order-independent constants. Second, Algorithm 1 solves that path problem by the standard metric-TSP recipe: build a minimum spanning tree, add a minimum-weight perfect matching on its odd-degree vertices, form an Eulerian circuit, and shortcut repeated vertices; a zero-cost dummy vertex forces the path to end at the region minimizing the forgetting-loss term. The $3/2$ factor comes from the classic bound on the resulting Hamiltonian path, and the forgetting-loss part is no worse than the optimum because the forced final region is the one with minimum summed dissimilarity.
What would settle it
For a small instance with $T=5$, enumerate all $T!$ routes to compute the exact minimum of $E[\bar\pi]$ in (7) and (11), run Algorithm 1, and compare the ratio; any instance where the ratio exceeds $3/2$ (or $3/2 + r^{1-T}$) would refute the corresponding proposition. One could also construct true parameter vectors whose dissimilarities are far below the given $\Delta$ bounds and check whether the algorithm's route is far from the true optimum, exposing the surrogate gap.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that the route-planning version of continual learning reduces to a shortest Hamiltonian path problem with a last-vertex bonus, and that a shortcutting algorithm forced to end at the region with the smallest summed dissimilarity preserves a 3/2 approximation. Proposition 2 states that in the underparameterized case ($n \geq m+2$) Algorithm 1 returns a route whose expected upper-bound loss in (7) is within a factor $3/2$ of the optimum, with $O(T^3)$ complexity. Proposition 3 states that in the overparameterized case ($m \geq n+2$) the ratio is $3/2 + r^{1-T}$, where $r = 1 - n/m$, and that it improves to $3/2$ when $m$ is sufficiently larger than $n$. The paper reports simulations showing ratios below these bounds and substantial gains over a fixed-order continual-learning baseline.
Load-bearing premise
The guarantees hold only for the upper-bound objective, and they require the agent to know upper bounds $\Delta_{i,j}$ and $\Delta_{i,0}$ on the true dissimilarities between ground-truth model parameters; if those bounds are loose, the chosen route can be far from optimal for the agent's actual loss.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Task order becomes a tunable resource: an agent with route freedom can keep the upper-bound forgetting-plus-travel loss within a constant factor of the best possible order in polynomial time.
- In the overparameterized regime the guarantee tightens to $3/2$ as the feature count grows relative to the sample count, because inter-task dissimilarity contributes less to forgetting.
- For two regions the algorithm returns an exactly optimal route, and in simulations its ratios stay below the theoretical $3/2$ and beat a fixed-order continual-learning baseline by 30–50% for $T \geq 6$.
- The $O(T^3)$ running time makes the approach usable for moderate numbers of tasks or regions.
Reading between the lines
- The approximation ratios are for the upper-bound surrogate objective, not the true expected loss. A direct extension would bound the surrogate-to-true gap as a function of how much the unknown $\Delta$ values overestimate true parameter dissimilarities; without such a bound, a loose estimate can make the recommended route far from the true optimum.
- The zero-cost dummy-vertex trick for forcing a Hamiltonian path to end at a designated vertex generalizes to other route-planning problems with a last-stop bonus, such as delivery or inspection tours with a preferred final location.
- The same reordering idea could transfer to curriculum selection or replay scheduling in continual learning whenever a closed-form forgetting-loss expression is available, though the travel-cost interpretation would need a replacement cost structure.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces a continual-learning problem in which an IoT agent chooses an order in which to visit T geographically separated tasks, trading off the expected forgetting loss of the final trained predictor against traveling cost. Because the ground-truth parameter dissimilarities are unknown, the authors upper-bound them by quantities Δ and solve the resulting surrogate objectives (7) and (11) for the underparameterized and overparameterized linear-regression settings. They prove NP-hardness, propose a Christofides-style Algorithm 1, and claim approximation ratios of 3/2 and 3/2 + r^{1-T} with O(T^3) complexity, followed by simulations comparing the surrogate objective value of the algorithm with a computed optimum.
Significance. If the claims hold, the paper proposes a genuinely new task-ordering variant of continual learning with a clean combinatorial formulation and a parameter-free, polynomial-time algorithm. The explicit approximation ratios, the O(T^3) complexity, and the use of known closed-form expected forgetting losses from [14] are attractive features. The main weaknesses are that the guarantees are stated for the upper-bound surrogate rather than the true expected loss, that the proof of Proposition 2 uses an invalid inequality, and that the NP-hardness argument is not a valid reduction as written. These issues are fixable, but they currently affect the support for the central claims.
major comments (4)
- [Section II-B, Assumption 1 and Eqs. (3), (7), (11); Section IV-C] The approximation guarantees are only for the surrogate upper-bound objectives (7) and (11), not for the true expected loss in (3). Assumption 1 gives no lower bound or tightness condition on the Δ values, so the gap between the surrogate and the true objective is uncontrolled. If the Δ are loose, the surrogate-optimal route can be essentially the travel-cheapest route while the true optimum strongly prefers a different final region, and the ratio E[π(τ*)] / min_τ E[π(τ)] can be arbitrarily large. The simulations in Section IV-C compute R := E[πbar*]/E[πbar**], so they only exercise the surrogate ratio. The abstract, Propositions 2 and 3, and the conclusion should either explicitly restrict all claims to the upper-bound surrogate, or the authors should add a theorem bounding the surrogate-to-true gap (for example, under an assumption that each Δ is within a constant factor of the true squared distance).
- [Appendix C, proof of Proposition 2] The inequality after 'The first inequality holds' is false as stated. From E[F(τ*)] ≤ E[F(τ**)] one cannot conclude (A+B)/(C+D) < B/D; for example, A=1, B=1, C=2, D=100 gives (A+B)/(C+D) > B/D. The claimed 3/2 ratio is recoverable by a different argument: since F* ≤ F** and C* ≤ (3/2)C**, the ratio (F*+C*)/(F**+C**) is at most max(F*/F**, C*/C**) ≤ 3/2. The proof should be rewritten with this argument, and the strict inequality should be made non-strict where equality is possible.
- [Section III-C, Proposition 1] The NP-hardness proof is not a valid reduction as written. The fact that the objective contains the SHP term Σ c_{τ_t,τ_{t+1}} does not imply that minimizing the composite objective is at least as hard as SHP, because the additional Δ-dependent terms can dominate or erase the dependence on the order. A correct reduction should specify an instance of (7) or (11) whose optimal route coincides with the optimal SHP route, e.g., by setting all Δ_{i,j} equal to a common constant so that the task-dissimilarity part is order-independent. Please provide such a construction or revise the argument.
- [Section IV-C, simulation setup] The experiments generate each traveling cost c_{i,j} uniformly in [1,10] without enforcing the triangle inequality assumed in Section II-A. For instance, c_{ab}=10 with c_{ac}=c_{cb}=1 violates c_{ab} ≤ c_{ac}+c_{cb}. Since Lemma 3 and the Christofides-style approximation rely on the metric property, the reported ratios are not a verification of the stated guarantee. Please generate metric costs (e.g., from random Euclidean points or as shortest-path distances) or explicitly label the experiments as heuristic tests outside the model assumptions.
minor comments (6)
- [Section IV-B, Proposition 3] Proposition 3 states the approximation ratio 'to the optimum of the agent's expected overall loss in (7)', but for the overparameterized case the relevant objective is Eq. (11), not Eq. (7).
- [Section II-A] The text calls x_{τ_t} an 'm × n feature vector'; it should be an 'm × n feature matrix'. Also, the output vector is n × 1, so the notation should be adjusted consistently.
- [Section II-B, Assumption 1] The phrase 'without loss of generality' before Assumption 1 is misleading: the existence of upper bounds Δ is an additional modeling assumption, not a normalization. Please replace it with a direct statement of the assumption.
- [Appendix D, proof of Proposition 3] The sentence 'we have Algorithm 1 returns a solution with o(3/2 + r^{1-T}) approximation ratio' should read 'with an approximation ratio of 3/2 + r^{1-T}'; the little-o notation is inappropriate here.
- [Section IV-C] The simulation section does not report the number of random trials, confidence intervals, or the method used to compute the optimum E[πbar**]. At minimum, please state these details and specify whether the generated instances satisfy the metric assumption.
- [Appendix A and B] Lemmas 1 and 2 are the analytic backbone of the paper, but the appendices only refer to Appendix D.8 and D.3 of [14]. Please state explicitly that these are restated known results and either reproduce the short derivations or give the precise theorem numbers in [14], so the paper is more self-contained.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: approximation guarantees follow from external closed-form lemmas and standard Christofides-style bounds.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The closed-form expected forgetting losses in Lemmas 1 and 2 are imported from reference [14], which is an independent prior work by Lin, Ju, Liang, and Shroff, not by the present authors; the appendix explicitly points to [14] for the proofs. The NP-hardness claim reduces the problem to the classical shortest Hamiltonian path problem, a standard external result. The 3/2 approximation factor rests on Lemma 3, a Christofides-style argument whose matching bound is cited from [19], an external historical/mathematical source. Propositions 2 and 3 then combine Lemma 3 with structural properties of the surrogate objectives in (7) and (11): in the underparameterized case, the forgetting term is minimized solely by the final vertex, so enforcing endpoint T' gives Ef(tau*) <= Ef(tau**); in the overparameterized case, the ratio bound uses the elementary bounds r^{T-i} in [r^{T-1}, 1] and the order-invariance of sum_i sum_j Delta_{tau_i,tau_j}. No parameter is fitted to the target ratio, and no load-bearing step is justified by a self-citation of Hao and Duan. The only substantive limitation is that the guarantees are stated for the upper-bound surrogate E[pi-bar], not for the true expected loss E[pi] in (3); that is a correctness/gap concern about loose Delta bounds, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular steps are present.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption Ground-truth parameter dissimilarities can be captured by known upper bounds Delta_{i,j} and Delta_{i,0} (Assumption 1).
- domain assumption Each feature element and noise element is i.i.d. Gaussian (x ~ N(0,1), z ~ N(0,sigma^2)).
- domain assumption The agent is memoryless and each predictor minimizes only the current training loss (underparameterized OLS or overparameterized minimum-norm SGD update).
- domain assumption Travel costs satisfy the triangle inequality c_{i,j} <= c_{i,k}+c_{k,j}.
- domain assumption Closed-form expected forgetting losses of Lemmas 1 and 2, taken from [14], are correct and applicable to the routing setting.
- standard math The shortest Hamiltonian path problem is NP-hard.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Algorithm Design for Continual Learning in IoT Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYHYKZCU
@misc{pith2026241216830,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Algorithm Design for Continual Learning in IoT Networks},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYHYKZCU}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16830}
}
abstract
Continual learning (CL) is a new online learning technique over sequentially generated streaming data from different tasks, aiming to maintain a small forgetting loss on previously-learned tasks. Existing work focuses on reducing the forgetting loss under a given task sequence. However, if similar tasks continuously appear to the end time, the forgetting loss is still huge on prior distinct tasks. In practical IoT networks, an autonomous vehicle to sample data and learn different tasks can route and alter the order of task pattern at increased travelling cost. To our best knowledge, we are the first to study how to opportunistically route the testing object and alter the task sequence in CL. We formulate a new optimization problem and prove it NP-hard. We propose a polynomial-time algorithm to achieve approximation ratios of $\frac{3}{2}$ for underparameterized case and $\frac{3}{2} + r^{1-T}$ for overparameterized case, respectively, where $r:=1-\frac{n}{m}$ is a parameter of feature number $m$ and sample number $n$ and $T$ is the task number. Simulation results verify our algorithm's close-to-optimum performance.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[14]
Theory on forgett ing and generalization of continual learning,
S. Lin, P . Ju, Y . Liang, and N. Shroff, “Theory on forgett ing and generalization of continual learning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 21 078–21 100
work page 2023
-
[1]
Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review,
G. I. Parisi, R. Kemker, J. L. Part, C. Kanan, and S. Wermte r, “Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review,” Neural networks, vol. 113, pp. 54–71, 2019
work page 2019
-
[2]
A comprehensive surv ey of continual learning: theory, method and application,
L. Wang, X. Zhang, H. Su, and J. Zhu, “A comprehensive surv ey of continual learning: theory, method and application,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024
work page 2024
-
[3]
Task difficulty awar e param- eter allocation & regularization for lifelong learning,
W. Wang, Y . Hu, Q. Chen, and Y . Zhang, “Task difficulty awar e param- eter allocation & regularization for lifelong learning,” i n Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Reco gnition, 2023, pp. 7776–7785
work page 2023
-
[4]
A statistical theory of regularization-based continual learning,
X. Zhao, H. Wang, W. Huang, and W. Lin, “A statistical theory of regularization-based continual learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06213, 2024
arXiv 2024
-
[5]
Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,
J. Kirkpatrick, R. Pascanu, N. Rabinowitz, J. V eness, G. Desjardins, A. A. Rusu, K. Milan, J. Quan, T. Ramalho, A. Grabska-Barwins ka et al. , “Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks, ” Pro- ceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 114, no. 13, pp. 3521–3526, 2017
work page 2017
-
[6]
Lifelong learni ng with dynamically expandable networks,
J. Y oon, E. Y ang, J. Lee, and S. J. Hwang, “Lifelong learni ng with dynamically expandable networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01547 , 2017
arXiv 2017
-
[7]
Topology-aware em bedding memory for continual learning on expanding networks,
X. Zhang, D. Song, Y . Chen, and D. Tao, “Topology-aware em bedding memory for continual learning on expanding networks,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 4326–4337
work page 2024
Show all 19 references
-
[8]
Theory o n mixture- of-experts in continual learning,
H. Li, S. Lin, L. Duan, Y . Liang, and N. B. Shroff, “Theory o n mixture- of-experts in continual learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16437 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[9]
Gradient episodic memory f or continual learning,
D. Lopez-Paz and M. Ranzato, “Gradient episodic memory f or continual learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017
2017
-
[10]
A unified approach to domain incremen tal learning with memory: Theory and algorithm,
H. Shi and H. Wang, “A unified approach to domain incremen tal learning with memory: Theory and algorithm,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024
2024
-
[11]
Bilat eral memory consolidation for continual learning,
X. Nie, S. Xu, X. Liu, G. Meng, C. Huo, and S. Xiang, “Bilat eral memory consolidation for continual learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni tion, 2023, pp. 16 026–16 035
2023
-
[12]
The effect of task orderin g in continual learning,
S. J. Bell and N. D. Lawrence, “The effect of task orderin g in continual learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13323 , 2022
2022 arXiv
-
[13]
How catastrophic can catastrophic forgetting be in linear regr ession?
I. Evron, E. Moroshko, R. Ward, N. Srebro, and D. Soudry, “How catastrophic can catastrophic forgetting be in linear regr ession?” in Conference on Learning Theory . PMLR, 2022, pp. 4028–4079
2022
-
[15]
Conti nual learning for real-world autonomous systems: Algorithms, c hallenges and frameworks,
K. Shaheen, M. A. Hanif, O. Hasan, and M. Shafique, “Conti nual learning for real-world autonomous systems: Algorithms, c hallenges and frameworks,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 105, no. 1, p. 9, 2022
2022
-
[16]
R. J. Muirhead, Aspects of multivariate statistical theory . John Wiley & Sons, 2009
2009
-
[17]
Hao and L
S. Hao and L. Duan. (2024) Algorithm design for continua l learning in iot networks. Techincal Report. [Online]. Avai lable: https://shuganghao.github.io/files/hao2025.pdf
2024
-
[18]
Hamiltonian paths in large clustered routing problems,
M. Sevaux, K. S¨ orensen et al. , “Hamiltonian paths in large clustered routing problems,” in Proceedings of the EU/MEeting 2008 workshop on Metaheuristics for Logistics and V ehicle Routing, EU/ME , vol. 8, 2008, pp. 411–417
2008
-
[19]
A historical note on the 3/2- approximation algorithm for the metric traveling salesman problem,
R. van Bevern and V . A. Slugina, “A historical note on the 3/2- approximation algorithm for the metric traveling salesman problem,” Historia Mathematica , vol. 53, pp. 118–127, 2020. APPENDIX A. Proof of Lemma 1 Please refer to Appendix D.8 in reference [14]. B. Proof of Lemm...
2020
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.