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

Rotem Shavitt

dblp:408/1670 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 91% Computational complexity · 9%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
computational social choice
0.912025
Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information · IJCAI 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
possible winner problem
0.912025
Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information · IJCAI 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
spatial voting
0.912025
Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information · IJCAI 2025
Computational complexity
parameterized complexity
0.312025
Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information · IJCAI 2025

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

complexity analysis · 0.9FPT algorithm · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information
abstract
We consider a spatial voting model where candidates and voters are positioned in $d$-dimensional Euclidean space, and each voter ranks candidates based on their proximity to the voter's ideal point. We focus on the scenario where information about voters' ideal points is incomplete; for each dimension, only an interval of possible values is known. Here, we investigate the computational complexity of determining possible winners under positional scoring rules. We show the possible winner problem in one dimension is solvable in polynomial time for all $k$-truncated voting rules with constant $k$. For some scoring rules where the problem is NP-complete, such as approval voting for any dimension or $k$-approval for $d \geq 2$, we give an FPT algorithm parameterized by the number of candidates. Finally, we classify tractable and intractable settings of the weighted possible winner problem in one dimension, resolving the complexity for all two-valued positional scoring rules when $d=1$.
Hadas Shachnai, Rotem Shavitt, Andreas Wiese
IJCAI2