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.

Alexander Lam

dblp:02/1582 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
fair division
1.622025
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
1.122022
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
1.022025
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
0.912025
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
0.912025
Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy Ratio · NeurIPS 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division
indivisible goods allocation
0.912025
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
0.912025
Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy Ratio · NeurIPS 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division
proportional fairness
0.612022
Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice
0.612022
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
0.512021
Nash Welfare in the Facility Location Problem · IJCAI 2021
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social welfare
0.312025
The (Exact) Price of Cardinality for Indivisible Goods: A Parametric Perspective · AAAI 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
resource allocation
0.212024
Welfare Loss in Connected Resource Allocation · IJCAI 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › algorithmic mechanism design
randomized mechanism
0.212022
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
0.212022
Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism · NeurIPS 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
strategic behavior
0.112021
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
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 Perspective
abstract
We 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
AAAI1
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-FAW2
2025 Temporal Fair Division of Indivisible Items
Edith Elkind, Alexander Lam, Mohamad Latifian, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh
AAMAS2
2025 Learning-Augmented Facility Location Mechanisms for Envy Ratio
abstract
The 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
NeurIPS3
2024 Welfare Loss in Connected Resource Allocation
Xiaohui Bei, Alexander Lam, Xinhang Lu, Warut Suksompong
IJCAI2
2022 Random Rank: The One and Only Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Randomized Facility Location Mechanism
abstract
Proportionality 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
NeurIPS2
2022 Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Facility Location
Haris Aziz 0001, Alexander Lam, Barton E. Lee, Toby Walsh
WINE2
2021 Nash Welfare in the Facility Location Problem
abstract
In 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
IJCAI1
2011 A Tool Set for Integrated Software and Hardware Dependability Analysis Using the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) and Error Model Annex
abstract
Cyberphysical (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
ICECCS2
2009 Experiences in developing and applying a software engineering technology testbed
Alexander Lam, Barry W. Boehm
Empir. Softw. Eng.1