Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Arnav Burudgunte
dblp:366/7526
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Learning theory · 100% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Privacy and data protection · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory › property testing
distribution testing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025 |
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory
property testing |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory › property testing
uniformity testing |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
information-theoretic lower bounds · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | New Bounds for Circular Trace ReconstructionabstractThe ''trace reconstruction'' problem asks, given an unknown binary string $x$ and a channel that repeatedly returns ''traces'' of $x$ with each bit randomly deleted with some probability $p$, how many traces are needed to recover $x$? There is an exponential gap between the best known upper and lower bounds for this problem. Many variants of the model have been introduced in hopes of motivating or revealing new approaches to narrow this gap. We study the variant of circular trace reconstruction introduced by Narayanan and Ren (ITCS 2021), in which traces undergo a random cyclic shift in addition to random deletions. We show an improved lower bound of $\tildeΩ(n^5)$ for circular trace reconstruction. This contrasts with the (previously) best known lower bounds of $\tildeΩ(n^3)$ in the circular case and $\tildeΩ(n^{3/2})$ in the linear case. Our bound shows the indistinguishability of traces from two sparse strings $x,y$ that each have a constant number of nonzeros. Can this technique be extended significantly? How hard is it to reconstruct a sparse string $x$ under a cyclic deletion channel? We resolve these questions by showing, using Fourier techniques, that $\tilde{O}(n^6)$ traces suffice for reconstructing any constant-sparse string in a circular deletion channel, in contrast to the upper bound of $\exp(\tilde{O}(n^{1/3}))$ for general strings in the circular deletion channel. This shows that new algorithms or new lower bounds must focus on non-constant-sparse strings. Arnav Burudgunte, Paul Valiant, Hongao Wang |
ITCS | 1 |
| 2025 | Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary DataabstractWe extend the framework of augmented distribution testing (Aliakbarpour, Indyk, Rubinfeld, and Silwal, NeurIPS 2024) to the differentially private setting. This captures scenarios where a data analyst must perform hypothesis testing tasks on sensitive data, but is able to leverage prior knowledge (public, but possibly erroneous or untrusted) about the data distribution. We design private algorithms in this augmented setting for three flagship distribution testing tasks, \emph{uniformity}, \emph{identity}, and \emph{closeness} testing, whose sample complexity smoothly scales with the claimed quality of the auxiliary information. We complement our algorithms with information-theoretic lower bounds, showing that their sample complexity is optimal (up to logarithmic factors). Maryam Aliakbarpour, Arnav Burudgunte, Clément L. Canonne, Ronitt Rubinfeld |
COLT | 2 |