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

Atasi Panda

dblp:327/3159 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 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
2 papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 51% Approximation and online algorithms · 33% Mathematical optimization · 16%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
1.012026
Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions · AAAI 2026
Mathematical optimization
combinatorial optimization
1.012026
Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions · AAAI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division
fair resource allocation
1.012026
Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions · AAAI 2026
Approximation and online algorithms › approximation schemes
polynomial-time approximation scheme
1.012026
Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions · AAAI 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.812024
Individual Fairness under Group Fairness Constraints in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All · IJCAI 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
group fairness
0.812024
Individual Fairness under Group Fairness Constraints in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All · IJCAI 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
individual fairness
0.812024
Individual Fairness under Group Fairness Constraints in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All · IJCAI 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › matching
bipartite matching
0.812024
Individual Fairness under Group Fairness Constraints in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All · IJCAI 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
matching
0.812024
Individual Fairness under Group Fairness Constraints in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All · IJCAI 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
fair division
0.312026
Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions · AAAI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › welfare maximization
nash social welfare
0.312026
Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions · AAAI 2026

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

approximation algorithm · 1.5network flow · 1.0linear programming · 1.0convex cost function · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Group Fair Matchings Using Convex Cost Functions
abstract
We consider the problem of assigning items to platforms where each item has a utility associated with each of the platforms to which it can be assigned. Each platform has a soft constraint over the total number of items it serves, modeled via a convex cost function. Additionally, items are partitioned into groups, and each platform also incurs group-specific convex cost over the number of items from each group that can be assigned to the platform. These costs promote group fairness by penalizing imbalances, yielding a soft variation of fairness notions introduced in prior work, such as Restricted Dominance and Minority protection. Restricted Dominance enforces upper bounds on group representation, while Minority protection enforces lower bounds. Our approach replaces such hard constraints with cost-based penalties, allowing more flexible trade-offs. Our model also captures Nash Social Welfare kind of objective. The cost of an assignment is the sum of the values of all the cost functions across all the groups and platforms. The objective is to find an assignment that minimizes the cost while achieving a total utility that is at least a user-specified threshold. The main challenge lies in balancing the overall platform cost with group-specific costs, both governed by convex functions, while meeting the utility constraint. We present an efficient polynomial-time approximation algorithm, supported by theoretical guarantees and experimental evaluation. Our algorithm is based on techniques involving linear programming and network flows. We also provide an exact algorithm for a special case with uniform utilities and establish the hardness of the general problem when the groups can intersect arbitrarily. This work has applications in cloud computing, logistics, resource-constrained machine learning deployment, federated learning, and network design, where resources must be allocated across platforms with diverse cost structures and diminishing returns.
Atasi Panda, Anand Louis, Prajakta Nimbhorkar
AAAI1
2024 Individual Fairness under Group Fairness Constraints in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All
Atasi Panda, Anand Louis, Prajakta Nimbhorkar
IJCAI1