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

Eden Hartman

dblp:344/0597 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-5819-4432ORCID · verified

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 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
2 papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
fair division
0.912025
Reducing Leximin Fairness to Utilitarian Optimization · AAAI 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division › max-min fairness
leximin fairness
0.912025
Reducing Leximin Fairness to Utilitarian Optimization · AAAI 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design
0.912025
It's Not All Black and White: Degree of Truthfulness for Risk-Avoiding Agents · EC 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › decision theory
risk-averse agents
0.912025
It's Not All Black and White: Degree of Truthfulness for Risk-Avoiding Agents · EC 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice
0.912025
Reducing Leximin Fairness to Utilitarian Optimization · AAAI 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › incentive compatibility
strategyproofness
0.912025
It's Not All Black and White: Degree of Truthfulness for Risk-Avoiding Agents · EC 2025

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

utility theory · 0.9reduction · 0.9approximation algorithm · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Reducing Leximin Fairness to Utilitarian Optimization
abstract
Two prominent objectives in social choice are utilitarian - maximizing the sum of agents' utilities, and leximin - maximizing the smallest agent's utility, then the second-smallest, etc. Utilitarianism is typically computationally easier to attain but is generally viewed as less fair. This paper presents a general reduction scheme that, given a utilitarian solver, produces a distribution over states (deterministic outcomes) that is leximin in expectation. Importantly, the scheme is robust in the sense that, given an approximate utilitarian solver, it produces a lottery that is approximately-leximin (in expectation) - with the same approximation factor. We apply our scheme to several social choice problems: stochastic allocations of indivisible goods, giveaway lotteries, and fair lotteries for participatory budgeting.
Eden Hartman, Yonatan Aumann, Avinatan Hassidim, Erel Segal-Halevi
AAAI1
2025 It's Not All Black and White: Degree of Truthfulness for Risk-Avoiding Agents
abstract
The classic notion of truthfulness requires that no agent has a profitable manipulation — an untruthful report that, for some combination of reports of the other agents, increases her utility. This strong notion implicitly assumes that the manipulating agent either knows what all other agents are going to report, or is willing to take the risk and act as-if she knows their reports.
Eden Hartman, Erel Segal-Halevi, Biaoshuai Tao
EC1
2023 Leximin Approximation: From Single-Objective to Multi-Objective
abstract
Leximin is a common approach to multi-objective optimization, frequently employed in fair division applications. In leximin optimization, one first aims to maximize the smallest objective value; subject to this, one maximizes the second-smallest objective; and so on. Often, even the single-objective problem of maximizing the smallest value cannot be solved accurately. What can we hope to accomplish for leximin optimization in this situation? Recently, Henzinger et al. (2022) defined a notion of approximate leximin optimality. Their definition, however, considers only an additive approximation. In this work, we first define the notion of approximate leximin optimality, allowing both multiplicative and additive errors. We then show how to compute, in polynomial time, such an approximate leximin solution, using an oracle that finds an approximation to a single-objective problem. The approximation factors of the algorithms are closely related: an (α,ϵ)-approximation for the single-objective problem (where α ∈ (0,1] and ϵ ≥ 0 are the multiplicative and additive factors respectively) translates into an (α2/(1 − α + α2), ϵ/(1 − α + α2))-approximation for the multi-objective leximin problem, regardless of the number of objectives. Finally, we apply our algorithm to obtain an approximate leximin solution for the problem of stochastic allocations of indivisible goods.
Eden Hartman, Avinatan Hassidim, Yonatan Aumann, Erel Segal-Halevi
ECAI1