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

Magd Bayoumi

dblp:294/4551 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging 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
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 77% Recommender systems · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › ranking
ranking optimization
0.612022
Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Markets · WWW 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › market design
matching markets
0.612022
Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Markets · WWW 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
welfare maximization
0.612022
Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Markets · WWW 2022
Recommender systems
personalized ranking
0.212022
Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Markets · WWW 2022

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

simulation · 1.1optimization · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Markets
abstract
Based on the success of recommender systems in e-commerce and entertainment, there is growing interest in their use in matching markets like job search. While this holds potential for improving market fluidity and fairness, we show in this paper that naively applying existing recommender systems to matching markets is sub-optimal. Considering the standard process where candidates apply and then get evaluated by employers, we present a new recommendation framework to model this interaction mechanism and propose efficient algorithms for computing personalized rankings in this setting. We show that the optimal rankings need to not only account for the potentially divergent preferences of candidates and employers, but they also need to account for capacity constraints. This makes conventional ranking systems that merely rank by some local score (e.g., one-sided or reciprocal relevance) highly sub-optimal — not only for an individual user, but also for societal goals (e.g., low unemployment). To address this shortcoming, we propose the first method for jointly optimizing the rankings for all candidates in the market to explicitly maximize social welfare. In addition to the theoretical derivation, we evaluate the method both on simulated environments and on data from a real-world networking-recommendation system that we built and fielded at a large computer science conference.
Magd Bayoumi, Thorsten Joachims
WWW2