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

Stephen Gross

dblp:195/8210 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author

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 · 87% Computational complexity · 13%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › algorithmic mechanism design
randomized mechanism
0.312017
Vote Until Two of You Agree: Mechanisms with Small Distortion and Sample Complexity · AAAI 2017
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice
0.312017
Vote Until Two of You Agree: Mechanisms with Small Distortion and Sample Complexity · AAAI 2017
Computational complexity › learning theory
sample complexity
0.112017
Vote Until Two of You Agree: Mechanisms with Small Distortion and Sample Complexity · AAAI 2017

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

randomized mechanism design · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Vote Until Two of You Agree: Mechanisms with Small Distortion and Sample Complexity
abstract
To design social choice mechanisms with desirable utility properties, normative properties, and low sample complexity, we propose a new randomized mechanism called 2-Agree. This mechanism asks random voters for their top alternatives until at least two voters agree, at which point it selects that alternative as the winner. We prove that, despite its simplicity and low sample complexity, 2-Agree achieves almost optimal distortion on a metric space when the number of alternatives is not large, and satisfies anonymity, neutrality, ex-post Pareto efficiency, very strong SD-participation, and is approximately truthful. We further show that 2-Agree works well for larger number of alternatives with decisive agents.
Stephen Gross, Elliot Anshelevich, Lirong Xia
AAAI1