EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alexander Lam
dblp:02/1582
· DBLP profile ↗
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
9since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 2 first-author · 6 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 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
5 papers |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 80% Approximation and online algorithms · 11% Mathematical optimization · 9% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
fair division |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | The (Exact) Price of Cardinality for Indivisible Goods: A Parametric Perspective · AAAI 2025 Welfare Loss in Connected Resource Allocation · IJCAI 2024 |
Approximation and online algorithms
facility location |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022 Nash Welfare in the Facility Location Problem · IJCAI 2021 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design |
1.0 | 2 | 2025 | Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy Ratio · NeurIPS 2025 Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022 |
Mathematical optimization › combinatorial optimization › matroid constraint
cardinality constraint |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The (Exact) Price of Cardinality for Indivisible Goods: A Parametric Perspective · AAAI 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › algorithmic mechanism design
facility location mechanism |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy Ratio · NeurIPS 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division
indivisible goods allocation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The (Exact) Price of Cardinality for Indivisible Goods: A Parametric Perspective · AAAI 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › algorithmic mechanism design
learning-augmented mechanism |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy Ratio · NeurIPS 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division
proportional fairness |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › welfare maximization
nash social welfare |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Nash Welfare in the Facility Location Problem · IJCAI 2021 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social welfare |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | The (Exact) Price of Cardinality for Indivisible Goods: A Parametric Perspective · AAAI 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
resource allocation |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Welfare Loss in Connected Resource Allocation · IJCAI 2024 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › algorithmic mechanism design
randomized mechanism |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › incentive compatibility
strategyproofness |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
strategic behavior |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Nash Welfare in the Facility Location Problem · IJCAI 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
randomized mechanism design · 1.4consistency-robustness analysis · 0.9expectation analysis · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Welfare loss in connected resource allocation
Xiaohui Bei, Alexander Lam, Xinhang Lu, Warut Suksompong |
Discret. Appl. Math. | 2 |
| 2025 | The (Exact) Price of Cardinality for Indivisible Goods: A Parametric PerspectiveabstractWe adopt a parametric approach to analyze the worst-case degradation in social welfare when the allocation of indivisible goods is constrained to be fair. Specifically, we are concerned with cardinality-constrained allocations, which require that each agent has at most k items in their allocated bundle. We propose the notion of the price of cardinality, which captures the worst-case multiplicative loss of utilitarian or egalitarian social welfare resulting from imposing the cardinality constraint. We then characterize tight or almost-tight bounds on the price of cardinality as exact functions of the instance parameters, demonstrating how the social welfare improves as k is increased. In particular, one of our main results refines and generalizes the existing asymptotic bound of Θ(√n) on the price of balancedness. We also further extend our analysis to the problem where the items are partitioned into disjoint categories, and each category has its own cardinality constraint. Through a parametric study of the price of cardinality, we provide a framework which aids decision makers in choosing an ideal level of cardinality-based fairness, using their knowledge of the potential loss of utilitarian and egalitarian social welfare. Alexander Lam, Bo Li 0037, Ankang Sun |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2025 | The Capacity-Constrained Facility Location Problem with Ordinal Preferences: Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Perspectives
Zifan Gong, Alexander Lam, Momcilo Mrkaic, Yachao Yan, Yingchao Zhao 0001 |
IJTCS-FAW | 2 |
| 2025 | Temporal Fair Division of Indivisible Items
Edith Elkind, Alexander Lam, Mohamad Latifian, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh |
AAMAS | 2 |
| 2025 | Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy RatioabstractThe augmentation of algorithms with predictions of the optimal solution, such as from a machine-learning algorithm, has garnered significant attention in recent years, particularly in facility location problems. Moving beyond the traditional focus on utilitarian and egalitarian objectives, we design learning-augmented facility location mechanisms for the envy ratio objective, a fairness metric defined as the maximum ratio between the utilities of any two agents. For the deterministic setting, we propose a mechanism which utilizes predictions to achieve $\alpha$-consistency and $\frac{\alpha}{\alpha - 1}$-robustness for a selected parameter $\alpha \in [1,2]$, and prove its optimality. We also resolve open questions raised by Ding et al. [2020], devising a randomized mechanism without predictions to improve upon the best-known approximation ratio from $2$ to $1.8944$. Building upon these advancements, we construct a novel randomized mechanism which incorporates predictions to achieve improved performance guarantees. Haris Aziz 0001, Yuhang Guo 0003, Alexander Lam, Houyu Zhou |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2024 | Welfare Loss in Connected Resource Allocation
Xiaohui Bei, Alexander Lam, Xinhang Lu, Warut Suksompong |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 2022 | Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location MechanismabstractProportionality is an attractive fairness concept that has been applied to a range of problems including the facility location problem, a classic problem in social choice. In our work, we propose a concept called Strong Proportionality, which ensures that when there are two groups of agents at different locations, both groups incur the same total cost. We show that although Strong Proportionality is a well-motivated and basic axiom, there is no deterministic strategyproof mechanism satisfying the property. We then identify a randomized mechanism called Random Rank (which uniformly selects a number $k$ between $1$ to $n$ and locates the facility at the $k$'th highest agent location) which satisfies Strong Proportionality in expectation. Our main theorem characterizes Random Rank as the unique mechanism that achieves universal truthfulness, universal anonymity, and Strong Proportionality in expectation among all randomized mechanisms. Finally, we show via the AverageOrRandomRank mechanism that even stronger ex-post fairness guarantees can be achieved by weakening universal truthfulness to strategyproofness in expectation. Haris Aziz 0001, Alexander Lam, Mashbat Suzuki, Toby Walsh |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2022 | Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Facility Location
Haris Aziz 0001, Alexander Lam, Barton E. Lee, Toby Walsh |
WINE | 2 |
| 2021 | Nash Welfare in the Facility Location ProblemabstractIn most facility location research, either an efficient facility placement which minimizes the total cost or a fairer placement which minimizes the maximum cost are typically proposed. To find a solution that is both fair and efficient, we propose converting the agent costs to utilities and placing the facility/ies such that the product of utilities, also known as the Nash welfare, is maximized. We ask whether the Nash welfare's well-studied balance between fairness and efficiency also applies to the facility location setting, and what agent strategic behaviour may occur under this facility placement. Alexander Lam |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2011 | A Tool Set for Integrated Software and Hardware Dependability Analysis Using the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) and Error Model AnnexabstractCyberphysical (embedded) computer system availability and reliability can be modeled and assessed using the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) and its Error Model Annex. AADL can represent systems at multiple levels of abstraction. Therefore, analyses can be performed early and often throughout the development process thereby minimizing the cost and schedule impact of changes. We discuss how the AADL and its Error Model Annex can be used for automated generation of a reliability/dependability model. We then describe a tool set to graphically create AADL system architecture and error behavior files that are then transformed into Stochastic Petri Nets (SPN) and Stochastic Activity Network (SAN) representations and demonstrate its use using a generic satellite as an example. Myron Hecht, Alexander Lam, Chris Vogl |
ICECCS | 2 |
| 2009 | Experiences in developing and applying a software engineering technology testbed
Alexander Lam, Barry W. Boehm |
Empir. Softw. Eng. | 1 |