Time-Varying Optimization for Streaming Data Via Temporal Weighting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical optimization theory deals with fixed, time-invariant objective functions. However, time-varying optimization has emerged as an important subject for decision-making in dynamic environments. In this work, we study the problem of learning from streaming data through a time-varying optimization lens. Unlike prior works that focus on generic formulations, we introduce a structured, weight-based formulation that explicitly captures the streaming-data origin of the time-varying objective, where at each time step, an agent aims to minimize a weighted average loss over all the past data samples. We focus on two specific weighting strategies: (1) uniform weights, which treat all samples equally, and (2) discounted weights, which geometrically decay the influence of older data. For both schemes, we derive tight bounds on the "tracking error" (TE), defined as the deviation between the model parameter and the time-varying optimum at a given time step, under gradient descent (GD) updates. We show that under uniform weighting, the TE vanishes asymptotically with a $\mathcal{O}(1/t)$ decay rate, whereas discounted weighting incurs a nonzero error floor controlled by the discount factor and the number of gradient updates performed at each time step. Our theoretical findings are validated through numerical simulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".