Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Paula Gradu
dblp:270/0124
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
1as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 1 first-author · 5 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.
| Artificial intelligence
5 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 41% Learning theory · 22% Trustworthy machine learning · 18% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Mathematical optimization · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization
online optimization |
1.1 | 2 | 2023 | CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential Experiments · NeurIPS 2023 Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit Feedback · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | From Individual Experience to Collective Evidence: A Reporting-Based Framework for Identifying Systemic Harms · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › experimental design
adaptive experimental design |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential Experiments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Mathematical optimization › online optimization
online gradient descent |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential Experiments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds |
0.6 | 2 | 2021 | Online Control of Unknown Time-Varying Dynamical Systems · NeurIPS 2021 Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit Feedback · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
safe reinforcement learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Lyapunov Density Models: Constraining Distribution Shift in Learning-Based Control · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
online control |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Online Control of Unknown Time-Varying Dynamical Systems · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › bandit
bandit feedback |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit Feedback · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
non-stochastic control |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit Feedback · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit Feedback · NeurIPS 2020 |
Mathematical optimization › online optimization
bandit convex optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit Feedback · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential Experiments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sequential hypothesis testing · 1.7multiple testing correction · 1.7variance estimation · 1.3potential outcomes framework · 1.3online gradient descent · 1.3lyapunov stability · 0.6density estimation · 0.6control-invariant sets · 0.6disturbance response policies · 0.5disturbance action policies · 0.5sublinear regret algorithm · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | From Individual Experience to Collective Evidence: A Reporting-Based Framework for Identifying Systemic HarmsabstractWhen an individual reports a negative interaction with some system, how can their personal experience be contextualized within broader patterns of system behavior? We study the *reporting database* problem, where individual reports of adverse events arrive sequentially, and are aggregated over time. In this work, our goal is to identify whether there are subgroups—defined by any combination of relevant
features—that are disproportionately likely to experience harmful interactions with the system. We formalize this problem as a sequential hypothesis test, and identify conditions on reporting behavior that are sufficient for making inferences about disparities in true rates of harm across subgroups. We show that algorithms for sequential hypothesis tests can be applied to this problem with a standard multiple testing
correction. We then demonstrate our method on real-world datasets, including mortgage decisions and vaccine side effects; on each, our method (re-)identifies subgroups known to experience disproportionate harm using only a fraction of the data that was initially used to discover them. Jessica Dai, Paula Gradu, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Benjamin Recht |
ICML | 2 |
| 2023 | Projection-free Adaptive Regret with Membership OraclesabstractIn the framework of online convex optimization, most iterative algorithms require the computation of projections onto convex sets, which can be computationally expensive. To tackle this problem HK12 proposed the study of projection-free methods that replace projections with less expensive computations. The most common approach is based on the Frank-Wolfe method, that uses linear optimization computation in lieu of projections. Recent work by GK22 gave sublinear adaptive regret guarantees with projection free algorithms based on the Frank Wolfe approach. In this work we give projection-free algorithms that are based on a different technique, inspired by Mhammedi22, that replaces projections by set-membership computations. We propose a simple lazy gradient-based algorithm with a Minkowski regularization that attains near-optimal adaptive regret bounds. For general convex loss functions we improve previous adaptive regret bounds from $O(T^{3/4})$ to $O(\sqrt{T})$, and further to tight interval dependent bound $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{I})$ where $I$ denotes the interval length. For strongly convex functions we obtain the first poly-logarithmic adaptive regret bounds using a projection-free algorithm. Nataly Brukhim, Paula Gradu, Elad Hazan |
ALT | 3 |
| 2023 | CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential ExperimentsabstractFrom clinical development of cancer therapies to investigations into partisan bias, adaptive sequential designs have become increasingly popular method for causal inference, as they offer the possibility of improved precision over their non-adaptive counterparts. However, even in simple settings (e.g. two treatments) the extent to which adaptive designs can improve precision is not sufficiently well understood. In this work, we study the problem of Adaptive Neyman Allocation in a design-based potential outcomes framework, where the experimenter seeks to construct an adaptive design which is nearly as efficient as the optimal (but infeasible) non-adaptive Neyman design, which has access to all potential outcomes. Motivated by connections to online optimization, we propose Neyman Ratio and Neyman Regret as two (equivalent) performance measures of adaptive designs for this problem. We present Clip-OGD, an adaptive design which achieves $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T})$ expected Neyman regret and thereby recovers the optimal Neyman variance in large samples. Finally, we construct a conservative variance estimator which facilitates the development of asymptotically valid confidence intervals. To complement our theoretical results, we conduct simulations using data from a microeconomic experiment. Jessica Dai, Paula Gradu, Christopher Harshaw |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2022 | Lyapunov Density Models: Constraining Distribution Shift in Learning-Based ControlabstractLearned models and policies can generalize effectively when evaluated within the distribution of the training data, but can produce unpredictable and erroneous outputs on out-of-distribution inputs. In order to avoid distribution shift when deploying learning-based control algorithms, we seek a mechanism to constrain the agent to states and actions that resemble those that the method was trained on. In control theory, Lyapunov stability and control-invariant sets allow us to make guarantees about controllers that stabilize the system around specific states, while in machine learning, density models allow us to estimate the training data distribution. Can we combine these two concepts, producing learning-based control algorithms that constrain the system to in-distribution states using only in-distribution actions? In this paper, we propose to do this by combining concepts from Lyapunov stability and density estimation, introducing Lyapunov density models: a generalization of control Lyapunov functions and density models that provides guarantees about an agent’s ability to stay in-distribution over its entire trajectory. Katie Kang, Paula Gradu, Jason J. Choi, Michael Janner, Claire J. Tomlin, Sergey Levine |
ICML | 2 |
| 2021 | Online Control of Unknown Time-Varying Dynamical SystemsabstractWe study online control of time-varying linear systems with unknown dynamics in the nonstochastic control model. At a high level, we demonstrate that this setting is \emph{qualitatively harder} than that of either unknown time-invariant or known time-varying dynamics, and complement our negative results with algorithmic upper bounds in regimes where sublinear regret is possible. More specifically, we study regret bounds with respect to common classes of policies: Disturbance Action (SLS), Disturbance Response (Youla), and linear feedback policies. While these three classes are essentially equivalent for LTI systems, we demonstrate that these equivalences break down for time-varying systems. We prove a lower bound that no algorithm can obtain sublinear regret with respect to the first two classes unless a certain measure of system variability also scales sublinearly in the horizon. Furthermore, we show that offline planning over the state linear feedback policies is NP-hard, suggesting hardness of the online learning problem. On the positive side, we give an efficient algorithm that attains a sublinear regret bound against the class of Disturbance Response policies up to the aforementioned system variability term. In fact, our algorithm enjoys sublinear \emph{adaptive} regret bounds, which is a strictly stronger metric than standard regret and is more appropriate for time-varying systems. We sketch extensions to Disturbance Action policies and partial observation, and propose an inefficient algorithm for regret against linear state feedback policies. Edgar Minasyan, Paula Gradu, Max Simchowitz, Elad Hazan |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2020 | Non-Stochastic Control with Bandit FeedbackabstractWe study the problem of controlling a linear dynamical system with adversarial perturbations where the only feedback available to the controller is the scalar loss, and the loss function itself is unknown. For this problem, with either a known or unknown system, we give an efficient sublinear regret algorithm. The main algorithmic difficulty is the dependence of the loss on past controls. To overcome this issue, we propose an efficient algorithm for the general setting of bandit convex optimization for loss functions with memory, which may be of independent interest. Paula Gradu, John Hallman, Elad Hazan |
NeurIPS | 1 |