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

Emma Rapoport

dblp:413/1745 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 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.

Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection › privacy-preserving query processing
adaptive query answering
0.912025
Tight Bounds for Answering Adaptively Chosen Concentrated Queries · NeurIPS 2025
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy
0.912025
Tight Bounds for Answering Adaptively Chosen Concentrated Queries · NeurIPS 2025
Computational complexity › learning theory
adaptive data analysis
0.912025
Tight Bounds for Answering Adaptively Chosen Concentrated Queries · NeurIPS 2025
Computational complexity › learning theory
sample complexity
0.312025
Tight Bounds for Answering Adaptively Chosen Concentrated Queries · NeurIPS 2025

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

lower bound arguments · 1.7concentration inequalities · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Tight Bounds for Answering Adaptively Chosen Concentrated Queries
abstract
Most work on adaptive data analysis assumes that samples in the dataset are independent. When correlations are allowed, even the non-adaptive setting can become intractable, unless some structural constraints are imposed. To address this, Bassily and Freund [2016] introduced the elegant framework of *concentrated queries*, which requires the analyst to restrict itself to queries that are concentrated around their expected value. While this assumption makes the problem trivial in the non-adaptive setting, in the adaptive setting it remains quite challenging. In fact, all known algorithms in this framework support significantly fewer queries than in the independent case: At most $O(n)$ queries for a sample of size $n$, compared to $O(n^2)$ in the independent setting. In this work, we prove that this utility gap is inherent under the current formulation of the concentrated queries framework, assuming some natural conditions on the algorithm. Additionally, we present a simplified version of the best-known algorithms that match our impossibility result.
Emma Rapoport, Edith Cohen, Uri Stemmer
NeurIPS1