EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alex Clinton
dblp:383/5654
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—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 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% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Efficient and distributed learning · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
collaborative learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Collaborative Mean Estimation Among Heterogeneous Strategic Agents: Individual Rationality, Fairness, and Truthful Contribution · ICML 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
incentive mechanism |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Cramér-von Mises Approach to Incentivizing Truthful Data Sharing · NeurIPS 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › incentive mechanism design
reward mechanisms |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Cramér-von Mises Approach to Incentivizing Truthful Data Sharing · NeurIPS 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Collaborative Mean Estimation Among Heterogeneous Strategic Agents: Individual Rationality, Fairness, and Truthful Contribution · ICML 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › solution concepts in games › equilibrium concepts
nash equilibrium |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Collaborative Mean Estimation Among Heterogeneous Strategic Agents: Individual Rationality, Fairness, and Truthful Contribution · ICML 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design
truthful mechanism |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Collaborative Mean Estimation Among Heterogeneous Strategic Agents: Individual Rationality, Fairness, and Truthful Contribution · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
axiomatic bargaining · 1.7two-sample testing · 0.9nash equilibrium analysis · 0.9cramér-von mises statistic · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Collaborative Mean Estimation Among Heterogeneous Strategic Agents: Individual Rationality, Fairness, and Truthful ContributionabstractWe study a collaborative learning problem where $m$ agents aim to estimate a vector $\mu =(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_d)\in \mathbb{R}^d$ by sampling from associated univariate normal distributions $(\mathcal{N}(\mu_k, \sigma^2))_{k\in[d]}$. Agent $i$ incurs a cost $c_{i,k}$ to sample from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_k, \sigma^2)$. Instead of working independently, agents can exchange data, collecting cheaper samples and sharing them in return for costly data, thereby reducing both costs and estimation error. We design a mechanism to facilitate such collaboration, while addressing two key challenges: ensuring individually rational (IR) and fair outcomes so all agents benefit, and preventing strategic behavior (e.g. non-collection, data fabrication) to avoid socially undesirable outcomes. We design a mechanism and an associated Nash equilibrium (NE) which minimizes the social penalty-sum of agents’ estimation errors and collection costs-while being IR for all agents. We achieve a $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m})$-approximation to the minimum social penalty in the worst case and an $\mathcal{O}(1)$-approximation under favorable conditions. Additionally, we establish three hardness results: no nontrivial mechanism guarantees (i) a dominant strategy equilibrium where agents report truthfully, (ii) is IR for every strategy profile of other agents, (iii) or avoids a worst-case $\Omega(\sqrt{m})$ price of stability in any NE. Finally, by integrating concepts from axiomatic bargaining, we demonstrate that our mechanism supports fairer outcomes than one which minimizes social penalty. Alex Clinton, Yiding Chen, Jerry Zhu, Kirthevasan Kandasamy |
ICML | 1 |
| 2025 | A Cramér-von Mises Approach to Incentivizing Truthful Data SharingabstractModern data marketplaces and data sharing consortia increasingly rely on incentive mechanisms to encourage agents to contribute data. However, schemes that reward agents based on the quantity of submitted data are vulnerable to manipulation, as agents may submit fabricated or low-quality data to inflate their rewards.
Prior work has proposed comparing each agent’s data against others’ to promote honesty: when others contribute genuine data, the best way to minimize discrepancy is to do the same. Yet prior implementations of this idea rely on very strong assumptions about the data distribution (e.g. Gaussian), limiting their applicability.
In this work, we develop reward mechanisms based on a novel, two-sample test statistic inspired by the Cramér-von Mises statistic.
Our methods strictly incentivize agents to submit more genuine data, while disincentivizing data fabrication and other types of untruthful reporting.
We establish that truthful reporting constitutes a (possibly approximate) Nash equilibrium in both Bayesian and prior-agnostic settings. We theoretically instantiate our method in two canonical data sharing problems and show that it relaxes key assumptions made by prior work.
Empirically, we demonstrate that our mechanism incentivizes truthful data sharing via simulations and on real-world language and image data. Alex Clinton, Thomas Zeng 0003, Yiding Chen, Xiaojin Zhu 0001, Kirthevasan Kandasamy |
NeurIPS | 1 |