VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aviram Imber
dblp:259/0800
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 92% Computational complexity · 8% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
computational social choice |
2.2 | 3 | 2025 | Approval-based committee voting under incomplete information · Artif. Intell. 2025 Spatial Voting with Incomplete Voter Information · AAAI 2024 Approval-Based Committee Voting under Incomplete Information · AAAI 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice › multiwinner voting
approval-based committee voting |
1.4 | 2 | 2025 | Approval-based committee voting under incomplete information · Artif. Intell. 2025 Approval-Based Committee Voting under Incomplete Information · AAAI 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice › preference representation
incomplete preferences |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Approval-based committee voting under incomplete information · Artif. Intell. 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › auction theory › combinatorial auction
winner determination |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Approval-based committee voting under incomplete information · Artif. Intell. 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice › voting rules
positional scoring rules |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Spatial Voting with Incomplete Voter Information · AAAI 2024 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
spatial voting |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Spatial Voting with Incomplete Voter Information · AAAI 2024 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
committee voting |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Approval-Based Committee Voting under Incomplete Information · AAAI 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
incomplete information |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Approval-Based Committee Voting under Incomplete Information · AAAI 2022 |
Computational complexity
parameterized and fine-grained complexity |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Approval-based committee voting under incomplete information · Artif. Intell. 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
complexity analysis · 2.2axiomatic analysis · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Approval-based committee voting under incomplete informationabstractWe investigate approval-based committee voting with incomplete information about the approval preferences of voters. We consider several models of incompleteness where each voter partitions the set of candidates into approved , disapproved , and unknown candidates, possibly with ordinal preference constraints among candidates in the latter category. This captures scenarios where voters have not evaluated all candidates and/or it is unknown where voters draw the threshold between approved and disapproved candidates. We study the complexity of some fundamental computational problems for a number of classic approval-based committee voting rules including Proportional Approval Voting and Chamberlin–Courant. These problems include determining whether a given set of candidates is a possible or necessary winning committee and whether a given candidate is possibly or necessarily a member of the winning committee. We also consider proportional representation axioms and the problem of deciding whether a given committee is possibly or necessarily representative. Aviram Imber, Jonas Israel, Markus Brill, Benny Kimelfeld |
Artif. Intell. | 1 |
| 2024 | Spatial Voting with Incomplete Voter InformationabstractWe consider spatial voting where candidates are located in the Euclidean d-dimensional space, and each voter ranks candidates based on their distance from the voter's ideal point. We explore the case where information about the location of voters' ideal points is incomplete: for each dimension, we are given an interval of possible values. We study the computational complexity of finding the possible and necessary winners for positional scoring rules. Our results show that we retain tractable cases of the classic model where voters have partial-order preferences. Moreover, we show that there are positional scoring rules under which the possible-winner problem is intractable for partial orders, but tractable in the one-dimensional spatial setting. We also consider approval voting in this setting. We show that for up to two dimensions, the necessary-winner problem is tractable, while the possible-winner problem is hard for any number of dimensions. Aviram Imber, Jonas Israel, Markus Brill, Hadas Shachnai, Benny Kimelfeld |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2023 | The Consistency of Probabilistic Databases with Independent CellsabstractA probabilistic database with attribute-level uncertainty consists of relations where cells of some attributes may hold probability distributions rather than deterministic content. Such databases arise, implicitly or explicitly, in the context of noisy operations such as missing data imputation, where we automatically fill in missing values, column prediction, where we predict unknown attributes, and database cleaning (and repairing), where we replace the original values due to detected errors or violation of integrity constraints. We study the computational complexity of problems that regard the selection of cell values in the presence of integrity constraints. More precisely, we focus on functional dependencies and study three problems: (1) deciding whether the constraints can be satisfied by any choice of values, (2) finding a most probable such choice, and (3) calculating the probability of satisfying the constraints. The data complexity of these problems is determined by the combination of the set of functional dependencies and the collection of uncertain attributes. We give full classifications into tractable and intractable complexities for several classes of constraints, including a single dependency, matching constraints, and unary functional dependencies. Amir Gilad, Aviram Imber, Benny Kimelfeld |
ICDT | 2 |
| 2022 | Approval-Based Committee Voting under Incomplete InformationabstractWe investigate approval-based committee voting with incomplete information about the approval preferences of voters. We consider several models of incompleteness where each voter partitions the set of candidates into approved, disapproved, and unknown candidates, possibly with ordinal preference constraints among candidates in the latter category. This captures scenarios where voters have not evaluated all candidates and/or it is unknown where voters draw the threshold between approved and disapproved candidates. We study the complexity of some fundamental computational problems for a number of classic approval-based committee voting rules including Proportional Approval Voting and Chamberlin-Courant. These problems include that of determining whether a given set of candidates is a possible or necessary winning committee and whether it forms a committee that possibly or necessarily satisfies representation axioms. We also consider the problem whether a given candidate is possibly or necessarily a member of the winning committee. Aviram Imber, Jonas Israel, Markus Brill, Benny Kimelfeld |
AAAI | 1 |