Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Rotem Shavitt
dblp:408/1670
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
computational social choice |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | 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 |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information · IJCAI 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
spatial voting |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete Information · IJCAI 2025 |
Computational complexity
parameterized complexity |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Finding Possible Winners in Spatial Voting with Incomplete InformationabstractWe 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 |
IJCAI | 2 |