Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David Zeng
dblp:153/2165
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9063-2746ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Theory of computation · 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 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 73% Approximation and online algorithms · 27% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
fair division |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Fairness-Efficiency Tradeoffs in Dynamic Fair Division · EC 2020 Achieving a Fairer Future by Changing the Past · IJCAI 2019 |
Approximation and online algorithms
online algorithms |
0.5 | 2 | 2020 | Achieving a Fairer Future by Changing the Past · IJCAI 2019 Fairness-Efficiency Tradeoffs in Dynamic Fair Division · EC 2020 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division › fair-division mechanisms
dynamic fair division |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Fairness-Efficiency Tradeoffs in Dynamic Fair Division · EC 2020 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division › envy-freeness
envy-freeness up to one good |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Fairness-Efficiency Tradeoffs in Dynamic Fair Division · EC 2020 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division
envy-freeness |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Achieving a Fairer Future by Changing the Past · IJCAI 2019 |
Approximation and online algorithms
online allocation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Achieving a Fairer Future by Changing the Past · IJCAI 2019 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › fair division › fair-division mechanisms
online fair division |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Achieving a Fairer Future by Changing the Past · IJCAI 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
randomized algorithm · 0.4approximation algorithm · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Access Control Policy Generation for IoT Using Deep Generative ModelsabstractInternet of Things (IoT) is commonly utilized in domestic, industrial, and public environments to automate various tasks. Due to this, an enormous amount of data is being generated and transmitted through IoT networks. These data may contain sensitive information depending on the context. Access control is one of the frontline security measures that any information system should adopt. The dynamic nature of the IoT requires access control policies to be able to adapt to their environments. However, it is very challenging for a human administrator to specify access control policies for all scenarios manually because of their dynamic nature. Current literature suggests the need for automating the process of policy generation. Machine Learning and Deep Learning techniques can enable the required automation. We conducted a case study using two baseline Tabular Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) models, namely CTGAN and CopulaGAN, to generate access control policy data. We utilized the CAV policies dataset published by Cunnington et al. We evaluated our results using both quantitative and manual evaluation. Our initial results identified a significant number of policy violations to underlying environmental constraints. We later trained the models by applying constraints. Our final results demonstrate that the models were able to generate policies without violating the specified environmental constraints. Kaushik Nagarajan Muthusamy Ragothaman, Yong Wang 0045, David Zeng, Bhaskar Prasad Rimal |
CCNC | 3 |
| 2020 | Fairness-Efficiency Tradeoffs in Dynamic Fair DivisionabstractA set of T indivisible goods has to be allocated to a set of n agents with additive utilities, in a way that is fair and efficient. A standard fairness concept is envy-freeness, which requires that each agent prefers her own allocation over the allocation of any other agent. Even though envy is clearly unavoidable in this context - consider the case of a single indivisible good and two agents - providing approximately envy-free solutions is possible [3, 6]. Specifically, an allocation is envy-free up to one item (EF1) if for every pair of agents i and j, any envy i has for j can be eliminated by removing at most one good from j's bundle. Recently, Caragiannis et al. [3] show that the allocation that maximizes the product of the agents' utilities (with ties broken based on the number of agents with positive utility) is EF1 and Pareto efficient. The majority of the literature to date has focused on the case where the items are available to the algorithm upfront. In many situations of interest, however, items arrive online. A paradigmatic example is that of food banks [1, 5]. Food banks across the world receive food donations they must allocate; these donations are often perishable, and thus allocation decisions must be made quickly, and donations are typically leftovers, leading to uncertainty about items that will arrive in the future. Benadè et al. [2] study this problem, but focus only on fairness. They show that there exists a deterministic algorithm with vanishing envy, that is, the maximum pairwise envy (after all T items have been allocated) is sublinear in T , when the value vit of agent i for the t-th item is normalized to be in [0, 1]. Specifically, the envy is guaranteed to be at most O(√p T logT /n), and this guarantee is tight up to polylogarithmic factors. The same guarantee can also be achieved by the simple randomized algorithm that allocates each item to a uniformly random agent. These results hold even against an adaptive adversary that selects the value vit after seeing the allocation of the first t - 1 items. On the other hand, if we focus only on efficiency, our task is much easier. For example, we could simply allocate each item to the agent with the highest value. But, and this brings us to our interest here, the question remains: How should we make allocation decisions online in a way that is fair to the donation recipients, but also as efficient as possible? David Zeng, Christos-Alexandros Psomas |
EC | 1 |
| 2019 | Achieving a Fairer Future by Changing the PastabstractWe study the problem of allocating T indivisible items that arrive online to agents with additive valuations. The allocation must satisfy a prominent fairness notion, envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), at each round. To make this possible, we allow the reallocation of previously allocated items, but aim to minimize these so-called adjustments. For the case of two agents, we show that algorithms that are informed about the values of future items can get by without any adjustments, whereas uninformed algorithms require Theta(T) adjustments. For the general case of three or more agents, we prove that even informed algorithms must use Omega(T) adjustments, and design an uninformed algorithm that requires only O(T^(3/2)). Jiafan He, Ariel D. Procaccia, Christos-Alexandros Psomas, David Zeng |
IJCAI | 4 |