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

Alexander Temper

dblp:423/7850 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—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
Computational complexity · 70% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 30%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction
dichotomy theorem
1.012026
How Hard Is It to Explain Preferences Using Few Boolean Attributes? · AAAI 2026
Computational complexity › parameterized complexity
fixed-parameter tractability
1.012026
How Hard Is It to Explain Preferences Using Few Boolean Attributes? · AAAI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
preference representation
1.012026
How Hard Is It to Explain Preferences Using Few Boolean Attributes? · AAAI 2026

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

parameterized complexity · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 How Hard Is It to Explain Preferences Using Few Boolean Attributes?
abstract
We study the computational complexity of explaining preference data through Boolean attribute models (BAMs), motivated by extensive research involving attribute models and their promise in understanding preference structure and enabling more efficient decision-making processes. In a BAM, each alternative possesses a subset of binary attributes, each voter cares about a subset of attributes, and voters prefer alternatives with more of their desired attributes. In the BAM problem, we are given a preference profile and want to know whether there is a k-attribute model explaining the profile. We establish a complexity dichotomy for the number of attributes k: BAM is linear-time solvable for k≤2 but NP-complete for k≥3. The problem remains hard even when preference orders have length two. On the positive side, BAM becomes fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by the number of alternatives m. For the special case of two voters, we provide a linear-time algorithm. We also analyze variants where partial information is given: When voter preferences over attributes are known (BAM With Cares) or when alternative attributes are specified (BAM With Has), showing that for most parameters BAM With Cares is more difficult whereas BAM With Has is more tractable except for being NP-hard even for one voter.
Clemens Anzinger, Jiehua Chen 0001, Christian Hatschka, Manuel Sorge, Alexander Temper
AAAI5