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

Hayley Grape

dblp:314/9913 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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 · 61% Computational geometry · 30% Computational complexity · 9%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
computational social choice
0.812024
Implications of Distance over Redistricting Maps: Central and Outlier Maps · AAAI 2024
Computational geometry
distance measures
0.812024
Implications of Distance over Redistricting Maps: Central and Outlier Maps · AAAI 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
redistricting
0.812024
Implications of Distance over Redistricting Maps: Central and Outlier Maps · AAAI 2024
Computational complexity › learning theory
sample complexity
0.212024
Implications of Distance over Redistricting Maps: Central and Outlier Maps · AAAI 2024

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

outlier detection · 0.8kemeny ranking · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Implications of Distance over Redistricting Maps: Central and Outlier Maps
abstract
In representative democracy, a redistricting map is chosen to partition an electorate into districts which each elects a representative. A valid redistricting map must satisfy a collection of constraints such as being compact, contiguous, and of almost-equal population. However, these constraints are loose enough to enable an enormous ensemble of valid redistricting maps. This enables a partisan legislature to gerrymander by choosing a map which unfairly favors it. In this paper, we introduce an interpretable and tractable distance measure over redistricting maps which does not use election results and study its implications over the ensemble of redistricting maps. Specifically, we define a central map which may be considered "most typical" and give a rigorous justification for it by showing that it mirrors the Kemeny ranking in a scenario where we have a committee voting over a collection of redistricting maps to be drawn. We include runnning time and sample complexity analysis for our algorithms, including some negative results which hold using any algorithm. We further study outlier detection based on this distance measure and show that our framework can detect some gerrymandered maps. More precisely, we show some maps that are widely considered to be gerrymandered that lie very far away from our central maps in comparison to a large ensemble of valid redistricting maps. Since our distance measure does not rely on election results, this gives a significant advantage in gerrymandering detection which is lacking in all previous methods.
Seyed A. Esmaeili, Darshan Chakrabarti, Hayley Grape, Brian Brubach
AAAI3