Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Rattana Pukdee
dblp:276/6555
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
3as first author
10since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 3 first-author · 9 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 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
7 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 30% Learning paradigms · 26% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 15% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Computational complexity · 100% |
Topics — the 19 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
semi-supervised learning |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Spectrally Transformed Kernel Regression · ICLR 2024 Label Propagation with Weak Supervision · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
weakly supervised learning |
1.1 | 2 | 2025 | Learning from weak labelers as constraints · ICLR 2025 Label Propagation with Weak Supervision · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from weak labelers as constraints · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
minimax optimization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from Interval Targets · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › learning with noisy labels
noisy label correction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from weak labelers as constraints · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
regression |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from Interval Targets · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › nonparametric regression
kernel regression |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Spectrally Transformed Kernel Regression · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
distribution shift |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Reliable learning in challenging environments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
explanation constraints |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Learning with Explanation Constraints · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Learning with Explanation Constraints · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › semi-supervised learning › graph-based semi-supervised learning
label propagation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Label Propagation with Weak Supervision · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
rademacher complexity |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Learning with Explanation Constraints · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Reliable learning in challenging environments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Computational complexity › learning theory › PAC learning
agnostic learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Reliable learning in challenging environments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Computational complexity
learning theory |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Reliable learning in challenging environments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Computational complexity › learning theory
PAC learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Reliable learning in challenging environments · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
contrastive learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Improving Transformation Invariance in Contrastive Representation Learning · ICLR 2021 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
transformation invariance |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Improving Transformation Invariance in Contrastive Representation Learning · ICLR 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
statistical guarantees |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Spectrally Transformed Kernel Regression · ICLR 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
smoothness constraint · 0.9min-max learning · 0.9generalization bounds · 0.9constrained optimization · 0.9alternating minimization · 0.9spectral transformation · 0.8kernel PCA · 0.8RKHS · 0.8weak supervision · 0.7label propagation · 0.7adversarial robustness · 0.7PAC learning · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | On the Consistent Recovery of Joint Distributions from ConditionalsabstractSelf-supervised learning methods that mask parts of the input data and train models to predict the missing components have led to significant advances in machine learning. These approaches learn conditional distributions $p(x_T \mid x_S)$ simultaneously, where $x_S$ and $x_T$ are subsets of the observed variables. In this paper, we examine the core problem of when all these conditional distributions are consistent with some joint distribution, and whether common models used in practice can learn consistent conditionals. We explore this problem in two settings. First, for the complementary conditioning sets where $S \cup T$ is the complete set of variables, we introduce the concept of path consistency, a necessary condition for a consistent joint. Second, we consider the case where we have access to $p(x_T \mid x_S)$ for all subsets $S$ and $T$. In this case, we propose the concepts of autoregressive and swap consistency, which we show are necessary and sufficient conditions for a consistent joint. For both settings, we analyze when these consistency conditions hold and show that standard discriminative models \emph{may fail to satisfy them}. Finally, we corroborate via experiments that proposed consistency measures can be used as proxies for evaluating the consistency of conditionals $p(x_T \mid x_S)$, and common parameterizations may find it hard to learn true conditionals. Mahbod Majid, Rattana Pukdee, Vishwajeet Agrawal, Burak Varici, Pradeep Ravikumar |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2025 | Learning from weak labelers as constraintsabstractWe study programmatic weak supervision, where in contrast to labeled data, we have access to \emph{weak labelers}, each of which either abstains or provides noisy labels corresponding to any input. Most previous approaches typically employ latent generative models that model the joint distribution of the weak labels and the latent ``true'' label. The caveats are that this relies on assumptions that may not always hold in practice such as conditional independence assumptions over the joint distribution of the weak labelers and the latent true label, and more general implicit inductive biases in the latent generative models. In this work, we consider a more explicit form of side-information that can be leveraged to denoise the weak labeler, namely the bounds on the average error of the weak labelers. We then propose a novel but natural weak supervision objective that minimizes a regularization functional subject to satisfying these bounds. This turns out to be a difficult constrained optimization problem due to discontinuous accuracy bound constraints. We provide a continuous optimization formulation for this objective through an alternating minimization algorithm that iteratively computes soft pseudo labels on the unlabeled data satisfying the constraints while being close to the model, and then updates the model on these labels until all the constraints are satisfied. We follow this with a theoretical analysis of this approach and provide insights into its denoising effects in training discriminative models given multiple weak labelers. Finally, we demonstrate the superior performance and robustness of our method on a popular weak supervision benchmark. Vishwajeet Agrawal, Rattana Pukdee, Maria-Florina Balcan, Pradeep Ravikumar |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2025 | Learning from Interval TargetsabstractWe study the problem of regression with interval targets, where only upper and lower bounds on target values are available in the form of intervals. This problem arises when the exact target label is expensive or impossible to obtain, due to inherent uncertainties. In the absence of exact targets, traditional regression loss functions cannot be used. First, we study the methodology of using a loss functions compatible with interval targets, for which we establish non-asymptotic generalization bounds based on smoothness of the hypothesis class that significantly relaxing prior assumptions of realizability and small ambiguity degree. Second,
we propose a novel min-max learning formulation: minimize against the worst-case (maximized) target labels within the provided intervals. The maximization problem in the latter is non-convex, but we show that good performance can be achieved with the incorporation of smoothness constraints. Finally, we perform extensive experiments on real-world datasets and show that our methods achieve state-of-the-art performance. Rattana Pukdee, Ziqi Ke |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Spectrally Transformed Kernel RegressionabstractUnlabeled data is a key component of modern machine learning. In general, the role
of unlabeled data is to impose a form of smoothness, usually from the similarity
information encoded in a base kernel, such as the ϵ-neighbor kernel or the adjacency
matrix of a graph. This work revisits the classical idea of spectrally transformed
kernel regression (STKR), and provides a new class of general and scalable STKR
estimators able to leverage unlabeled data. Intuitively, via spectral transformation,
STKR exploits the data distribution for which unlabeled data can provide additional
information. First, we show that STKR is a principled and general approach,
by characterizing a universal type of “target smoothness”, and proving that any
sufficiently smooth function can be learned by STKR. Second, we provide scalable
STKR implementations for the inductive setting and a general transformation
function, while prior work is mostly limited to the transductive setting. Third, we
derive statistical guarantees for two scenarios: STKR with a known polynomial
transformation, and STKR with kernel PCA when the transformation is unknown.
Overall, we believe that this work helps deepen our understanding of how to work
with unlabeled data, and its generality makes it easier to inspire new methods. Runtian Zhai, Rattana Pukdee, Roger Jin, Maria-Florina Balcan, Pradeep Ravikumar |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2023 | Nash Equilibria and Pitfalls of Adversarial Training in Adversarial Robustness GamesabstractAdversarial training is a standard technique for training adversarially robust models. In this paper, we study adversarial training as an alternating best-response strategy in a 2-player zero-sum game. We prove that even in a simple scenario of a linear classifier and a statistical model that abstracts robust vs. non-robust features, the alternating best response strategy of such game may not converge. On the other hand, a unique pure Nash equilibrium of the game exists and is provably robust. We support our theoretical results with experiments, showing the non-convergence of adversarial training and the robustness of Nash equilibrium. Maria-Florina Balcan, Rattana Pukdee, Pradeep Ravikumar, Hongyang Zhang 0001 |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2023 | Label Propagation with Weak Supervision
Rattana Pukdee, Dylan Sam, Pradeep Ravikumar, Maria-Florina Balcan |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2023 | Reliable learning in challenging environmentsabstractThe problem of designing learners that provide guarantees that their predictions are provably correct is of increasing importance in machine learning. However, learning theoretic guarantees have only been considered in very specific settings. In this work, we consider the design and analysis of reliable learners in challenging test-time environments as encountered in modern machine learning problems: namely adversarial test-time attacks (in several variations) and natural distribution shifts. In this work, we provide a reliable learner with provably optimal guarantees in such settings. We discuss computationally feasible implementations of the learner and further show that our algorithm achieves strong positive performance guarantees on several natural examples: for example, linear separators under log-concave distributions or smooth boundary classifiers under smooth probability distributions. Maria-Florina Balcan, Steve Hanneke, Rattana Pukdee, Dravyansh Sharma |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2023 | Learning with Explanation ConstraintsabstractAs larger deep learning models are hard to interpret, there has been a recent focus on generating explanations of these black-box models.
In contrast, we may have apriori explanations of how models should behave. In this paper, we formalize this notion as learning from explanation constraints and provide a learning theoretic framework to analyze how such explanations can improve the learning of our models. One may naturally ask, "When would these explanations be helpful?"
Our first key contribution addresses this question via a class of models that satisfies these explanation constraints in expectation over new data. We provide a characterization of the benefits of these models (in terms of the reduction of their Rademacher complexities) for a canonical class of explanations given by gradient information in the settings of both linear models and two layer neural networks. In addition, we provide an algorithmic solution for our framework, via a variational approximation that achieves better performance and satisfies these constraints more frequently, when compared to simpler augmented Lagrangian methods to incorporate these explanations. We demonstrate the benefits of our approach over a large array of synthetic and real-world experiments. Rattana Pukdee, Dylan Sam, J. Zico Kolter, Maria-Florina Balcan, Pradeep Ravikumar |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | Sharp asymptotics on the compression of two-layer neural networksabstractIn this paper, we study the compression of a target two-layer neural network with N nodes into a compressed network with M2loss between the outputs of the target and of the compressed network, under the assumption of Gaussian inputs. By using tools from high-dimensional probability, we show that this non-convex problem can be simplified when the target network is sufficiently over-parameterized, and provide the error rate of this approximation as a function of the input dimension and N. In this mean-field limit, the simplified objective, as well as the optimal weights of the compressed network, does not depend on the realization of the target network, but only on expected scaling factors. Furthermore, for networks with ReLU activation, we conjecture that the optimum of the simplified optimization problem is achieved by taking weights on the Equiangular Tight Frame (ETF), while the scaling of the weights and the orientation of the ETF depend on the parameters of the target network. Numerical evidence is provided to support this conjecture. Mohammad Hossein Amani, Simone Bombari, Marco Mondelli, Rattana Pukdee, Stefano Rini |
ITW | 4 |
| 2021 | Improving Transformation Invariance in Contrastive Representation Learning
Adam Foster 0001, Rattana Pukdee, Tom Rainforth |
ICLR | 2 |