Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Adam Melrod

dblp:401/8619 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper
Learning theory · 67% Trustworthy machine learning · 33%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithms and data structures · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning
1.012026
On Randomized Algorithms in Online Strategic Classification · COLT 2026
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds
1.012026
On Randomized Algorithms in Online Strategic Classification · COLT 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › performative prediction
strategic classification
1.012026
On Randomized Algorithms in Online Strategic Classification · COLT 2026
Algorithms and data structures
randomized algorithms
0.312026
On Randomized Algorithms in Online Strategic Classification · COLT 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

lower bound construction · 2.0randomized algorithms · 1.0randomized algorithm · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 On Randomized Algorithms in Online Strategic Classification
abstract
Online strategic classification studies settings in which agents strategically modify their features to obtain favorable predictions. For example, given a classifier that determines loan approval based on credit scores, applicants may open or close credit cards and bank accounts to obtain a positive prediction. The learning goal is to achieve low mistake or regret bounds despite such strategic behavior. While randomized algorithms have the potential to offer advantages to the learner in strategic settings, they have been largely underexplored. In the realizable setting, no lower bound is known for randomized algorithms, and existing lower bound constructions for deterministic learners can be circumvented by randomization. In the agnostic setting, the best known regret upper bound is $O(T^{3/4}\log^{1/4}(T|\mathcal{H}|))$ due to Ahmadi et al. (2023), which is far from the standard online learning rate of $O(\sqrt{T\log|\mathcal{H}|})$. In this work, we provide refined upper and lower bounds for online strategic classification in both the realizable and agnostic settings; our bounds depend on the Littlestone dimension $\mathrm{Ldim}(\mathcal{H})$ of the hypothesis class $\mathcal{H}$ and the maximum degree $\Delta$ of the manipulation graph. In the realizable setting, using a new construction, we prove a lower bound that, for $T > \mathrm{Ldim}(\mathcal{H}) \Delta^2$, extends the existing deterministic lower bound of $\Omega(\mathrm{Ldim}(\mathcal{H}) \Delta)$ to all algorithms. This is the first lower bound that applies to randomized algorithms, resolving an open question of Ahmadi et al. (2023). We also give the first randomized algorithm that improves on the known deterministic upper bound of $O(\mathrm{Ldim}(\mathcal{H})\cdot\Delta\log\Delta)$, achieving $O(\sqrt{T\cdot\mathrm{Ldim}(\mathcal{H})\log\Delta})$ expected mistakes, in the regime $T < \mathrm{Ldim}(\mathcal{H})\,\Delta^2\log\Delta$. In the agnostic setting, we give an improper randomized algorithm with expected regret $O(\sqrt{T\log|\mathcal{H}|})$ against adaptive adversaries, improving upon the previous $O(T^{3/4}\log^{1/4}(T|\mathcal{H}|))$ bound and matching the standard online learning rate. We also prove that this optimal rate requires improper learning.
Chase Hutton, Adam Melrod, Han Shao 0001
COLT2