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

Zein Pishbin

dblp:423/5127 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—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 · 80% Approximation and online algorithms · 20%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › proportional representation
justified representation
1.012026
Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem · AAAI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
multiwinner voting
1.012026
Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem · AAAI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
online decision making
1.012026
Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem · AAAI 2026
Approximation and online algorithms › online algorithms
secretary problem
1.012026
Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem · AAAI 2026
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice
1.012026
Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem · AAAI 2026

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

nash rule · 1.0method of equal shares · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem
abstract
This paper bridges two perspectives: it studies the multi-secretary problem through the fairness lens of social choice, and examines multi-winner elections from the viewpoint of online decision making. After identifying the limitations of the prominent proportionality notion of Extended Justified Representation (EJR) in the online domain, the work proposes a set of mechanisms that merge techniques from online algorithms with rules from social choice---such as the Method of Equal Shares and the Nash Rule---and supports them through both theoretical analysis and extensive experimental evaluation.
Georgios Papasotiropoulos, Zein Pishbin
AAAI2