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

Dimitris Kalaitzis

dblp:50/8399 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1

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 · 71% Approximation and online algorithms · 14% Mathematical optimization · 14%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › computational social choice › voting rules
approval voting
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
computational social choice
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice › strategic voting
group strategyproofness
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010
Mathematical optimization › linear programming relaxation › rounding
LP rounding
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design › incentive compatibility
strategyproofness
0.112010
Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting · AAAI 2010

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

linear programming relaxation · 0.1deterministic rounding · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting
abstract
We consider approval voting elections in which each voter votes for a (possibly empty) set of candidates and the outcome consists of a set of k candidates for some parameter k, e.g., committee elections. We are interested in the minimax approval voting rule in which the outcome represents a compromise among the voters, in the sense that the maximum distance between the preference of any voter and the outcome is as small as possible. This voting rule has two main drawbacks. First, computing an outcome that minimizes the maximum distance is computationally hard. Furthermore, any algorithm that always returns such an outcome provides incentives to voters to misreport their true preferences. In order to circumvent these drawbacks, we consider approximation algorithms, i.e., algorithms that produce an outcome that approximates the minimax distance for any given instance. Such algorithms can be considered as alternative voting rules. We present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm that uses a natural linear programming relaxation for the underlying optimization problem and deterministically rounds the fractional solution in order to compute the outcome; this result improves upon the previously best known algorithm that has an approximation ratio of 3. We are furthermore interested in approximation algorithms that are resistant to manipulation by (coalitions of) voters, i.e., algorithms that do not motivate voters to misreport their true preferences in order to improve their distance from the outcome. We complement previous results in the literature with new upper and lower bounds on strategyproof and group-strategyproof algorithms.
Ioannis Caragiannis, Dimitris Kalaitzis, Evangelos Markakis 0001
AAAI2