Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Navin Kartik
dblp:43/11290
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 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 · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › cooperative game theory
bargaining |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information · EC 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
incomplete information |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information · EC 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information · EC 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
mechanism design · 0.6equilibrium analysis · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete InformationabstractWe study sequential bargaining between a proposer and a veto player. Both have single-peaked preferences, but the proposer is uncertain about the veto player's ideal point. The proposer cannot commit to future proposals. When players are patient, there can be equilibria with Coasian dynamics: the veto player's private information can largely nullify proposer's bargaining power. Our main result, however, is that there are also equilibria in which the proposer obtains the high payoff that he would with commitment power. The driving force is that the veto player's single-peaked preferences give the proposer an option to "leapfrog", i.e., to secure agreement from only low-surplus types early on to credibly extract surplus from high types later. Methodologically, we exploit the connection between sequential bargaining and static mechanism design. S. Nageeb Ali, Navin Kartik, Andreas Kleiner |
EC | 2 |