This list of FOCS 2010 accepted papers (82/270) has been published: pure list, with abstracts, with many links to papers. AGT/E related ones:
- The Geometry of Manipulation – a Quantitative Proof of the Gibbard Satterthwaite Theorem [arXiv]
Authors: Marcus Isaksson, Guy Kindler and Elchanan Mossel - Frugal Mechanism Design via Spectral Techniques [arXiv]
Authors: Ning Chen, Edith Elkind, Nick Gravin and Fedor Petrov - Sequential Rationality in Cryptographic Protocols
Authors: Ronen Gradwohl, Noam Livne and Alon Rosen - Frugal and Truthful Auctions for Vertex Covers, Flows, and Cuts [arXiv]
Authors: David Kempe, Mahyar Salek and Cristopher Moore - Black-Box Randomized Reductions in Algorithmic Mechanism Design
Authors: Shaddin Dughmi and Tim Roughgarden - Pure and Bayes-Nash Price of Anarchy for Generalized Second Price Auction [pdf]
Authors: Renato Paes Leme and Eva Tardos - Budget Feasible Mechanisms [arXiv]
Author: Yaron Singer
Turing's Invisible Hand 
“Budget Feasible Mechanisms” has only Yaron as an author on the accepted papers list, but Yaron and Christos both on the arxiv version. What happened?
I guess they removed Christos so that Yaron would be able to submit to FOCS (Christos was on the FOCS PC).
That borders on unethical
If the journal version has both authors, it is definitely unethical.
And if Christos was involved in evaluating this paper, the matter is a
serious one.
Wrt comment 4.
Never does an advisor evaluate his student’s papers when he is in a PC.
Because of the conflict of interest, the advisor cannot participate in the online discussions, and in FOCS/STOC he needs to step out of the room when the paper is being discussed. Moreover, he doesn’t even have access to the external reviewers’ comments, hence he doesn’t have a clue about the decision before it’s public.
To Anonymous 3 and 4:
I would expect people who make these kinds of statements to at least have the courage to sign their comments.
I completely agree that the thinly disguised accusations above are unfair and misguided. Anonymous 5, I found it ironic though that you did not sign your own comment…
Since this is my paper that is being discussed, I will refrain from commenting here.
However, if I were to comment (anonymously), I would most likely thank anonymous 1 2 and 3 and Tom for generating interest around this paper, which I would love everyone to read (btw: if anyone has any ideas on how to prove unconditional lower bounds that are stronger than the ones shown in Appendix A proposition 3 in the forthcoming paper please email me at yaron@cs.berkeley.edu).
Yaron, can you testify that you are the sole author of this paper? This will kill any criticism.
Where is Proposition 3 in Appendix A? Did not find it in your arXiv version…
Actually since you are the sole author for the paper now, it would be much better if you can update your paper asap, from both your homepage and arXiv. That kills a lot noises..
Responding to anonymous 4 (who made comment #5). I am none of the previous commenters in this thread. However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that commenters making ethical accusations have an obligation to do so without anonymity. If they are lowly grad students or pre-tenure faculty, it can be a means of protection from more powerful folks who may take issue with their accusations, legitimate as they may be. This is why we have anonymous reviewing: protect the weak’s ability to speak up without fear of consequences.
As for the issue at hand: the Yaron/Christos co-author situation — this is probably one of those cases where the advisor was a borderline contributor in the first place, and its a judgement call whether they should be a co-author — so either call is legitimate. Nevertheless, arguably Yaron made a strategic mistake in not amending the author list on all publicly available drafts of the paper in order to avoid the scrutiny/criticism of this thread. On the other hand, since this generated a lot of interest in the paper, perhaps it wasn’t a mistake after all. As they say: “Any publicity is good publicity”.
This discussion makes no sense at all. We are talking about Christos and Yaron Singer, a first class researcher and a very promising and talented grad student.
How is that relevant?
I bet that 99% of the computer scientists in the world does not know you, and 99% of them know Christos. Do you think that he built such a reputation being dishonest?
Good point. I stand corrected. People with a good reputation are exempt from scrutiny. Presidents, respected members of congress, successful businessmen, and generally anybody with a good reputation can simply never be questioned or asked to explain anything that they do. That is the way we run our institutions in the modern world, clearly.
there are many shades of dishonesty.
Aside of the discussion here, Yaron, could you please put on arxive the new version of our paper?
The current version is not easy to follow and there is no Appendix A proposition 3 as someone here has pointed.
Sorry. That was typo “our paper” should be “your paper”.
“our paper”? Afterall, is Yaron the single author of this paper?