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

Arnav Burudgunte

dblp:366/7526 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory › property testing
distribution testing
0.912025
Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy
0.912025
Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory
property testing
0.312025
Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data · COLT 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory › property testing
uniformity testing
0.312025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 New Bounds for Circular Trace Reconstruction
abstract
The ''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
ITCS1
2025 Better Private Distribution Testing by Leveraging Unverified Auxiliary Data
abstract
We 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
COLT2