EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Timothy G. Abbott
dblp:64/6828
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-authorTheory of computation · 2 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author
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 |
Computational geometry · 47% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 31% Computational complexity · 15% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational geometry › geometric decomposition
geometric dissection |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Hinged dissections exist · SCG 2008 |
Computational geometry › polytopes
polyhedra |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Hinged dissections exist · SCG 2008 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › solution concepts in games › equilibrium concepts
nash equilibrium |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | On the Complexity of Two-PlayerWin-Lose Games · FOCS 2005 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › non-cooperative game
two-player games |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | On the Complexity of Two-PlayerWin-Lose Games · FOCS 2005 |
Algorithms and data structures
constructive algorithms |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Hinged dissections exist · SCG 2008 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
constructive proof · 0.1reduction · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Hinged Dissections Exist
Timothy G. Abbott, Zachary Abel, David Charlton, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Scott Duke Kominers |
Discret. Comput. Geom. | 1 |
| 2009 | Dynamic ham-sandwich cuts in the plane
Timothy G. Abbott, Michael A. Burr, Timothy M. Chan, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, John Hugg, Daniel M. Kane, Stefan Langerman, Jelani Nelson, Eynat Rafalin, Kathryn Seyboth, Vincent Yeung |
Comput. Geom. | 1 |
| 2008 | Hinged dissections existabstractWe prove that any finite collection of polygons of equal area has a common hinged dissection, that is, a chain of polygons hinged at vertices that can be folded in the plane continuously without self-intersection to form any polygon in the collection. This result settles the open problem about the existence of hinged dissections between pairs of polygons that goes back implicitly to 1864 and has been studied extensively in the past ten years. Our result generalizes and indeed builds upon the result from 1814 that polygons have common dissections (without hinges). We also extend our result to edge-hinged dissections of solid 3D polyhedra that have a common (unhinged) dissection, as determined by Dehn's 1900 solution to Hilbert's Third Problem. Our proofs are constructive, giving explicit algorithms in all cases. For a constant number of planar polygons, both the number of pieces and running time required by our construction are pseudopolynomial. This bound is the best possible even for unhinged dissections. Hinged dissections have possible applications to reconfigurable robotics, programmable matter, and nanomanufacturing. Timothy G. Abbott, Zachary Abel, David Charlton, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Scott Duke Kominers |
SCG | 1 |
| 2007 | Browser-Based Attacks on Tor
Timothy G. Abbott, Katherine J. Lai, Michael R. Lieberman, Eric Price 0001 |
Privacy Enhancing Technologies | 1 |
| 2005 | On the Complexity of Two-PlayerWin-Lose GamesabstractThe efficient computation of Nash equilibria is one of the most formidable challenges in computational complexity today. The problem remains open for two-player games. We show that the complexity of two-player Nash equilibria is unchanged when all outcomes are restricted to be 0 or 1. That is, win-or-lose games are as complex as the general case for two-player games. Timothy G. Abbott, Daniel M. Kane, Paul Valiant |
FOCS | 1 |