Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mehrad Abbaszadeh
dblp:426/7184
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as 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 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% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › distortion of voting rules
metric distortion |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Metric Distortion with Preference Intensities · AAAI 2026 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice › voting rules
positional scoring rules |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Metric Distortion with Preference Intensities · AAAI 2026 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social choice |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Metric Distortion with Preference Intensities · AAAI 2026 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice
voting rules |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Metric Distortion with Preference Intensities · AAAI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
zero-sum game solving · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Metric Distortion with Preference IntensitiesabstractIn voting with ranked ballots each agent submits a strict ranking of the form a > b > c > d over the alternatives, and the voting rule decides on the winner based on these rankings. Although this ballot format has desirable characteristics, there is a question of whether it is expressive enough for the agents. Kahng et. al. address this issue by adding intensities to the rankings. They introduce ranking with intensities ballot format, where agents can use both >> and > in their rankings to express intensive and normal preferences between consecutive alternatives in their rankings. While Kahng et. al. focus on analyzing this ballot format in the utilitarian distortion framework, in this work, we look at the potentials of using this ballot format from the metric distortion view point. We design a class of voting rules coined Positional Scoring Rules, which can be used for different problems in the metric setting, and show that by solving a zero-sum game we can find the optimal member of this class for our problem. This rule takes intensities into account and achieves a lower distortion. In addition, by proving a bound on the price of ignoring intensities, we show that we might lose a great deal in terms of distortion by not taking the intensities into account. Mehrad Abbaszadeh, Ali Ansarifar, Mohamad Latifian, Masoud Seddighin |
AAAI | 1 |