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

Fabricio Vasselai

dblp:324/0466 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 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%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Multi-agent systems · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › strategic voting
iterative voting
0.612022
Iterative Calculus of Voting under Plurality · AAAI 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
voting
0.612022
Iterative Calculus of Voting under Plurality · AAAI 2022

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

simulation · 1.1pivotal probability computation · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Iterative Calculus of Voting under Plurality
abstract
We formalize a voting model for plurality elections that combines Iterative Voting and Calculus of Voting. Each iteration, autonomous agents simultaneously maximize the utility they expect from candidates. Agents are aware of neither other individuals’ preferences or choices, nor of the distribution of preferences. They know only of candidates’ latest vote shares and with that calculate expected rewards from each candidate, pondering the probability that voting for each would alter the election. We define the general form of those pivotal probabilities, then we derive efficient exact and approximated calculations. Lastly, we prove formally the model converges with asymptotically large electorates and show via simulations that it nearly always converges even with very few agents.
Fabricio Vasselai
AAAI1