BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Debarghya Ghoshdastidar

Debarghya Ghoshdastidar contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningMethodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Nonparametric Kernel Clustering with Bandit Feedback

Clustering with bandit feedback refers to the problem of partitioning a set of items, where the clustering algorithm can sequentially query the items to receive noisy observations. The problem is formally posed as the task of partitioning the arms of an N-armed stochastic bandit according to their underlying distributions, grouping two arms together if and only if they share the same distribution, using samples collected sequentially and adaptively. This setting has gained attention in recent years due to its applicability in recommendation systems and crowdsourcing. Existing works on clustering with bandit feedback rely on a strong assumption that the underlying distributions are sub-Gaussian. As a consequence, the existing methods mainly cover settings with linearly-separable clusters, which has little practical relevance. We introduce a framework of ``nonparametric clustering with bandit feedback'', where the underlying arm distributions are not constrained to any parametric, and hence, it is applicable for active clustering of real-world datasets. We adopt a kernel-based approach, which allows us to reformulate the nonparametric problem as the task of clustering the arms according to their kernel mean embeddings in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). Building on this formulation, we introduce the KABC algorithm with theoretical correctness guarantees and analyze its sampling budget. We introduce a notion of signal-to-noise ratio for this problem that depends on the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) between the arm distributions and on their variance in the RKHS. Our algorithm is adaptive to this unknown quantity: it does not require it as an input yet achieves instance-dependent guarantees.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2025arXiv

Tight PAC-Bayesian Risk Certificates for Contrastive Learning

Contrastive representation learning is a modern paradigm for learning representations of unlabeled data via augmentations -- precisely, contrastive models learn to embed semantically similar pairs of samples (positive pairs) closer than independently drawn samples (negative samples). In spite of its empirical success and widespread use in foundation models, statistical theory for contrastive learning remains less explored. Recent works have developed generalization error bounds for contrastive losses, but the resulting risk certificates are either vacuous (certificates based on Rademacher complexity or $f$-divergence) or require strong assumptions about samples that are unreasonable in practice. The present paper develops non-vacuous PAC-Bayesian risk certificates for contrastive representation learning, considering the practical considerations of the popular SimCLR framework. Notably, we take into account that SimCLR reuses positive pairs of augmented data as negative samples for other data, thereby inducing strong dependence and making classical PAC or PAC-Bayesian bounds inapplicable. We further refine existing bounds on the downstream classification loss by incorporating SimCLR-specific factors, including data augmentation and temperature scaling, and derive risk certificates for the contrastive zero-one risk. The resulting bounds for contrastive loss and downstream prediction are much tighter than those of previous risk certificates, as demonstrated by experiments on CIFAR-10.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Causal Forecasting:Generalization Bounds for Autoregressive Models

Despite the increasing relevance of forecasting methods, causal implications of these algorithms remain largely unexplored. This is concerning considering that, even under simplifying assumptions such as causal sufficiency, the statistical risk of a model can differ significantly from its \textit{causal risk}. Here, we study the problem of \textit{causal generalization} -- generalizing from the observational to interventional distributions -- in forecasting. Our goal is to find answers to the question: How does the efficacy of an autoregressive (VAR) model in predicting statistical associations compare with its ability to predict under interventions? To this end, we introduce the framework of \textit{causal learning theory} for forecasting. Using this framework, we obtain a characterization of the difference between statistical and causal risks, which helps identify sources of divergence between them. Under causal sufficiency, the problem of causal generalization amounts to learning under covariate shifts, albeit with additional structure (restriction to interventional distributions under the VAR model). This structure allows us to obtain uniform convergence bounds on causal generalizability for the class of VAR models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that provides theoretical guarantees for causal generalization in the time-series setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Interpolation and Regularization for Causal Learning

We study the problem of learning causal models from observational data through the lens of interpolation and its counterpart -- regularization. A large volume of recent theoretical, as well as empirical work, suggests that, in highly complex model classes, interpolating estimators can have good statistical generalization properties and can even be optimal for statistical learning. Motivated by an analogy between statistical and causal learning recently highlighted by Janzing (2019), we investigate whether interpolating estimators can also learn good causal models. To this end, we consider a simple linearly confounded model and derive precise asymptotics for the *causal risk* of the min-norm interpolator and ridge-regularized regressors in the high-dimensional regime. Under the principle of independent causal mechanisms, a standard assumption in causal learning, we find that interpolators cannot be optimal and causal learning requires stronger regularization than statistical learning. This resolves a recent conjecture in Janzing (2019). Beyond this assumption, we find a larger range of behavior that can be precisely characterized with a new measure of *confounding strength*. If the confounding strength is negative, causal learning requires weaker regularization than statistical learning, interpolators can be optimal, and the optimal regularization can even be negative. If the confounding strength is large, the optimal regularization is infinite, and learning from observational data is actively harmful.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Two-sample Hypothesis Testing for Inhomogeneous Random Graphs

The study of networks leads to a wide range of high dimensional inference problems. In many practical applications, one needs to draw inference from one or few large sparse networks. The present paper studies hypothesis testing of graphs in this high-dimensional regime, where the goal is to test between two populations of inhomogeneous random graphs defined on the same set of $n$ vertices. The size of each population $m$ is much smaller than $n$, and can even be a constant as small as 1. The critical question in this context is whether the problem is solvable for small $m$. We answer this question from a minimax testing perspective. Let $P,Q$ be the population adjacencies of two sparse inhomogeneous random graph models, and $d$ be a suitably defined distance function. Given a population of $m$ graphs from each model, we derive minimax separation rates for the problem of testing $P=Q$ against $d(P,Q)>ρ$. We observe that if $m$ is small, then the minimax separation is too large for some popular choices of $d$, including total variation distance between corresponding distributions. This implies that some models that are widely separated in $d$ cannot be distinguished for small $m$, and hence, the testing problem is generally not solvable in these cases. We also show that if $m>1$, then the minimax separation is relatively small if $d$ is the Frobenius norm or operator norm distance between $P$ and $Q$. For $m=1$, only the latter distance provides small minimax separation. Thus, for these distances, the problem is solvable for small $m$. We also present near-optimal two-sample tests in both cases, where tests are adaptive with respect to sparsity level of the graphs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access