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

Aida Rahmattalabi

dblp:190/8655 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0001-9930-4343ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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
2 papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 47% Graph algorithms and graph theory · 36% Approximation and online algorithms · 18%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Web and social media mining · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 100%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction
algorithmic transparency
1.012026
Treading the Transparency Tightrope: A Taxonomy of Risks and Benefits of Foundation Model Data Transparency for Transparency Advocates · CHI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
influence maximization
0.512021
Fair Influence Maximization: a Welfare Optimization Approach · AAAI 2021
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
welfare maximization
0.512021
Fair Influence Maximization: a Welfare Optimization Approach · AAAI 2021
Web and social media mining › social network analysis
influence maximization
0.522021
Influence Maximization for Social Network Based Substance Abuse Prevention · AAAI 2018
Fair Influence Maximization: a Welfare Optimization Approach · AAAI 2021
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.412019
Exploring Algorithmic Fairness in Robust Graph Covering Problems · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
group fairness
0.412019
Exploring Algorithmic Fairness in Robust Graph Covering Problems · NeurIPS 2019
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
0.412019
Exploring Algorithmic Fairness in Robust Graph Covering Problems · NeurIPS 2019
Graph algorithms and graph theory
graph algorithms
0.412019
Exploring Algorithmic Fairness in Robust Graph Covering Problems · NeurIPS 2019
Graph algorithms and graph theory › graph theory
graph covering
0.412019
Exploring Algorithmic Fairness in Robust Graph Covering Problems · NeurIPS 2019
Web and social media mining
social network analysis
0.112021
Fair Influence Maximization: a Welfare Optimization Approach · AAAI 2021

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

taxonomy development · 2.0document analysis · 2.0submodular optimization · 1.0social welfare theory · 1.0robust optimization · 0.8approximation algorithm · 0.8social network analysis · 0.7influence maximization · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Treading the Transparency Tightrope: A Taxonomy of Risks and Benefits of Foundation Model Data Transparency for Transparency Advocates
abstract
Data powering AI is often opaque. Researchers, NGOs, and law and policy leaders have called for greater transparency about how data is used for training, fine-tuning, and evaluation. While data transparency is often championed as crucial, what it concretely enables is largely implicit. Similarly, the concerns developers seem to have about transparency go unstated. This lack of clarity has led some researchers to critique transparency demands as disconnected from the actual benefits—or risks—to specific stakeholders. We analyze documentation from four stakeholder groups to create a taxonomy of the risks and benefits of dataset transparency. Data transparency is perceived as either a risk or a benefit given a stakeholder’s position, rather than wholesale. We also propose data availability and data documentation as two lenses through which to consider transparency. We discuss how best to strategically promote situational data transparency that takes into account the relationship between stakeholder position, transparency modality, and benefits/risks.
Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Wiebke Hutiri, Aida Rahmattalabi, Victoria Matthews, Alice Xiang, Jerone Theodore Alexander Andrews
CHI3
2021 Fair Influence Maximization: a Welfare Optimization Approach
abstract
Several behavioral, social, and public health interventions, such as suicide/HIV prevention or community preparedness against natural disasters, leverage social network information to maximize outreach. Algorithmic influence maximization techniques have been proposed to aid with the choice of ``peer leaders'' or ``influencers'' in such interventions. Yet, traditional algorithms for influence maximization have not been designed with these interventions in mind. As a result, they may disproportionately exclude minority communities from the benefits of the intervention. This has motivated research on fair influence maximization. Existing techniques come with two major drawbacks. First, they require committing to a single fairness measure. Second, these measures are typically imposed as strict constraints leading to undesirable properties such as wastage of resources. To address these shortcomings, we provide a principled characterization of the properties that a fair influence maximization algorithm should satisfy. In particular, we propose a framework based on social welfare theory, wherein the cardinal utilities derived by each community are aggregated using the isoelastic social welfare functions. Under this framework, the trade-off between fairness and efficiency can be controlled by a single inequality aversion design parameter. We then show under what circumstances our proposed principles can be satisfied by a welfare function. The resulting optimization problem is monotone and submodular and can be solved efficiently with optimality guarantees. Our framework encompasses as special cases leximin and proportional fairness. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real world datasets including a case study on landslide risk management demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed framework.
Aida Rahmattalabi, Shahin Jabbari, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Phebe Vayanos, Max Izenberg, Ryan Brown, Eric Rice, Milind Tambe
AAAI1
2019 Exploring Algorithmic Fairness in Robust Graph Covering Problems
abstract
Fueled by algorithmic advances, AI algorithms are increasingly being deployed in settings subject to unanticipated challenges with complex social effects. Motivated by real-world deployment of AI driven, social-network based suicide prevention and landslide risk management interventions, this paper focuses on a robust graph covering problem subject to group fairness constraints. We show that, in the absence of fairness constraints, state-of-the-art algorithms for the robust graph covering problem result in biased node coverage: they tend to discriminate individuals (nodes) based on membership in traditionally marginalized groups. To remediate this issue, we propose a novel formulation of the robust covering problem with fairness constraints and a tractable approximation scheme applicable to real world instances. We provide a formal analysis of the price of group fairness (PoF) for this problem, where we show that uncertainty can lead to greater PoF. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on several real-world social networks. Our method yields competitive node coverage while significantly improving group fairness relative to state-of-the-art methods.
Aida Rahmattalabi, Phebe Vayanos, Anthony Fulginiti, Eric Rice, Bryan Wilder, Amulya Yadav, Milind Tambe
NeurIPS1
2018 Influence Maximization for Social Network Based Substance Abuse Prevention
abstract
Substance use and abuse is a significant public health problem in the United States. Group-based intervention programs offer a promising means of reducing substance abuse. While effective, inappropriate intervention groups can result in an increase in deviant behaviors among participants, a process known as deviancy training. In this paper, we present GUIDE, an AI-based decision aid that leverages social network information to optimize the structure of the intervention groups.
Aida Rahmattalabi, Anamika Barman-Adhikari, Phebe Vayanos, Milind Tambe, Eric Rice, Robin Baker
AAAI1
2016 D++: Structural credit assignment in tightly coupled multiagent domains
abstract
Autonomous multi-robot teams can be used in complex coordinated exploration tasks to improve exploration performance in terms of both speed and effectiveness. However, use of multi-robot systems presents additional challenges. Specifically, in domains where the robots' actions are tightly coupled, coordinating multiple robots to achieve cooperative behavior at the group level is difficult. In this paper, we demonstrate that reward shaping can greatly benefit learning in multi-robot exploration tasks. We propose a novel reward framework based on the idea of counterfactuals to tackle the coordination problem in tightly coupled domains. We show that the proposed algorithm provides superior performance (166% performance improvement and a quadruple convergence speed up) compared to policies learned using either the global reward or the difference reward [1].
Aida Rahmattalabi, Jen Jen Chung, Mitchell K. Colby, Kagan Tumer
IROS1