Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mervin Triphaus
dblp:209/9681
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
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 · 40% Mathematical optimization · 40% Computational complexity · 20% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization
combinatorial optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fair Knapsack · AAAI 2019 |
Mathematical optimization
knapsack problem |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fair Knapsack · AAAI 2019 |
Computational complexity
parameterized complexity |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fair Knapsack · AAAI 2019 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
preference aggregation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fair Knapsack · AAAI 2019 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fair Knapsack · AAAI 2019 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Fair KnapsackabstractWe study the following multiagent variant of the knapsack problem. We are given a set of items, a set of voters, and a value of the budget; each item is endowed with a cost and each voter assigns to each item a certain value. The goal is to select a subset of items with the total cost not exceeding the budget, in a way that is consistent with the voters’ preferences. Since the preferences of the voters over the items can vary significantly, we need a way of aggregating these preferences, in order to select the socially best valid knapsack. We study three approaches to aggregating voters’ preferences, which are motivated by the literature on multiwinner elections and fair allocation. This way we introduce the concepts of individually best, diverse, and fair knapsack. We study the computational complexity (including parameterized complexity, and complexity under restricted domains) of the aforementioned multiagent variants of knapsack. Till Fluschnik, Piotr Skowron 0001, Mervin Triphaus, Kai Wilker |
AAAI | 3 |