World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Ariel D. Procaccia

Ariel D. Procaccia

D-Index & Metrics

Engineering and Technology

D-Index
65
Citations
13231
World Ranking
1560
National Ranking
510

Ariel D. Procaccia publication distribution in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Engineering and Technology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Ariel D. Procaccia sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 20 scientists 48–57 publications: 35 scientists 58–67 publications: 96 scientists 68–77 publications: 135 scientists 78–87 publications: 190 scientists 88–97 publications: 259 scientists 98–107 publications: 283 scientists 108–117 publications: 369 scientists 118–127 publications: 341 scientists 128–137 publications: 386 scientists 138–147 publications: 372 scientists 148–157 publications: 457 scientists 158–167 publications: 415 scientists 168–177 publications: 407 scientists 178–187 publications: 421 scientists 188–197 publications: 378 scientists 198–207 publications: 403 scientists 208–217 publications: 317 scientists 218–227 publications: 346 scientists 228–237 publications: 321 scientists 238–247 publications: 260 scientists 248–257 publications: 280 scientists 258–267 publications: 240 scientists 268–277 publications: 214 scientists 278–287 publications: 242 scientists 288–297 publications: 203 scientists 298–307 publications: 166 scientists 308–317 publications: 154 scientists 318–327 publications: 175 scientists 328–337 publications: 159 scientists 338–347 publications: 99 scientists 348–357 publications: 131 scientists 358–367 publications: 106 scientists 368–377 publications: 118 scientists 378–387 publications: 97 scientists 388–397 publications: 108 scientists 398–407 publications: 82 scientists 408–417 publications: 71 scientists 418–427 publications: 64 scientists 428–437 publications: 55 scientists 438–447 publications: 54 scientists 448–457 publications: 60 scientists 458–467 publications: 47 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 30 scientists 488–497 publications: 29 scientists 498–507 publications: 38 scientists 508–517 publications: 40 scientists 518–527 publications: 32 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 28 scientists 548–557 publications: 23 scientists 558–567 publications: 19 scientists 568–577 publications: 16 scientists 578–587 publications: 17 scientists 588–597 publications: 18 scientists 598–607 publications: 22 scientists 608–617 publications: 15 scientists 618–627 publications: 9 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 21 scientists 648–657 publications: 12 scientists 658–667 publications: 9 scientists 668–677 publications: 11 scientists 678–687 publications: 9 scientists 688–697 publications: 6 scientists 698–707 publications: 14 scientists 708–717 publications: 7 scientists 718–727 publications: 8 scientists 728–737 publications: 10 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 5 scientists 758–767 publications: 5 scientists 768–777 publications: 11 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 2 scientists 798–803 publications: 4 scientists 804+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 804+

This scientist: 232 publications — 59th percentile

59% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 804 publications or more.

Ariel D. Procaccia D-index placement in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Engineering and Technology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Ariel D. Procaccia sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 59 scientists 31 D-Index: 114 scientists 32 D-Index: 129 scientists 33 D-Index: 189 scientists 34 D-Index: 200 scientists 35 D-Index: 262 scientists 36 D-Index: 311 scientists 37 D-Index: 312 scientists 38 D-Index: 350 scientists 39 D-Index: 385 scientists 40 D-Index: 348 scientists 41 D-Index: 362 scientists 42 D-Index: 426 scientists 43 D-Index: 380 scientists 44 D-Index: 310 scientists 45 D-Index: 341 scientists 46 D-Index: 301 scientists 47 D-Index: 306 scientists 48 D-Index: 271 scientists 49 D-Index: 246 scientists 50 D-Index: 210 scientists 51 D-Index: 253 scientists 52 D-Index: 213 scientists 53 D-Index: 221 scientists 54 D-Index: 195 scientists 55 D-Index: 186 scientists 56 D-Index: 170 scientists 57 D-Index: 167 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 144 scientists 60 D-Index: 152 scientists 61 D-Index: 141 scientists 62 D-Index: 138 scientists 63 D-Index: 131 scientists 64 D-Index: 118 scientists 65 D-Index: 114 scientists 66 D-Index: 119 scientists 67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68 D-Index: 87 scientists 69 D-Index: 77 scientists 70 D-Index: 89 scientists 71 D-Index: 69 scientists 72 D-Index: 54 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 55 scientists 75 D-Index: 54 scientists 76 D-Index: 49 scientists 77 D-Index: 53 scientists 78 D-Index: 46 scientists 79 D-Index: 28 scientists 80 D-Index: 39 scientists 81 D-Index: 36 scientists 82 D-Index: 24 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 36 scientists 85 D-Index: 18 scientists 86 D-Index: 25 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 26 scientists 89 D-Index: 27 scientists 90 D-Index: 23 scientists 91 D-Index: 15 scientists 92 D-Index: 12 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 15 scientists 95 D-Index: 10 scientists 96 D-Index: 13 scientists 97 D-Index: 13 scientists 98 D-Index: 9 scientists 99 D-Index: 7 scientists 100 D-Index: 7 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 7 scientists 103 D-Index: 7 scientists 104 D-Index: 9 scientists 105 D-Index: 6 scientists 106 D-Index: 9 scientists 107+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 107+

This scientist: 65 D-Index — 85th percentile

85% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 107 D-Index or more.

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2018 - Fellow of John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation
  • 2015 - Fellow of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Overview

Ariel D. Procaccia is affiliated with Harvard University in the United States. Their work spans several fields related to economics, econometrics, and finance, with a significant focus on game theory, voting systems, and auction theory. Their research also covers management science, operations research, and artificial intelligence.

The scientist's recent publications have appeared in prominent academic venues. Among the papers are:

  • Fair algorithms for selecting citizens' assemblies, 2021, Nature
  • Preference Elicitation for Participatory Budgeting, 2020, Management Science
  • Belief polarization in a complex world: A learning theory perspective, 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Multiagent Evaluation Mechanisms, 2020, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  • Liquid Democracy: An Algorithmic Perspective, 2021, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Frequent publication venues for Ariel D. Procaccia include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  • Operations Research
  • Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
  • Communications of the ACM

Their collaborations include several frequent co-authors such as Paul Gölz, Daniel Halpern, Jamie Tucker-Foltz, Gregory Kehne, and Dominik Peters.

Ariel D. Procaccia's research topics encompass:

  • Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Auction Theory and Applications
  • Game Theory and Applications
  • Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence

Their fields of study include:

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Safety Research

Ariel D. Procaccia has received recognition including fellowships from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in 2018 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in 2015.

Best Publications

  • The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare

    Ioannis Caragiannis;David Kurokawa;Hervé Moulin;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Handbook of Computational Social Choice

    Felix Brandt;Vincent Conitzer;Ulle Endriss;Jérôme Lang;Jérôme Lang

  • Approximate mechanism design without money

    Ariel D. Procaccia;Moshe Tennenholtz

  • Junta distributions and the average-case complexity of manipulating elections

    Ariel D. Procaccia;Jeffrey S. Rosenschein

  • Truth, justice, and cake cutting

    Yiling Chen;John K. Lai;David C. Parkes;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • No agent left behind: dynamic fair division of multiple resources

    Ian Kash;Ariel D. Procaccia;Nisarg Shah

  • Incentive compatible regression learning

    Ofer Dekel;Felix Fischer;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Beyond dominant resource fairness: extensions, limitations, and indivisibilities

    David C. Parkes;Ariel D. Procaccia;Nisarg Shah

  • AI’s War on Manipulation: Are We Winning?

    Piotr Faliszewski;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Fair enough: guaranteeing approximate maximin shares

    Ariel D. Procaccia;Junxing Wang

  • On the complexity of achieving proportional representation

    Ariel D. Procaccia;Jeffrey S. Rosenschein;Aviv Zohar

  • WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance

    Min Kyung Lee;Daniel Kusbit;Anson Kahng;Ji Tae Kim

  • Cake cutting: not just child's play

    Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Optimal social choice functions: a utilitarian view

    Craig Boutilier;Ioannis Caragiannis;Simi Haber;Tyler Lu

  • The distortion of cardinal preferences in voting

    Ariel D. Procaccia;Jeffrey S. Rosenschein

  • Spliddit: unleashing fair division algorithms

    Jonathan Goldman;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Algorithms for the coalitional manipulation problem

    Michael Zuckerman;Ariel D. Procaccia;Jeffrey S. Rosenschein

  • Better human computation through principled voting

    Andrew Mao;Ariel D. Procaccia;Yiling Chen

  • A Voting-Based System for Ethical Decision Making

    Ritesh Noothigattu;Snehalkumar 'Neil' S. Gaikwad;Edmond Awad;Sohan Dsouza

  • Mix and match

    Itai Ashlagi;Felix Fischer;Ian Kash;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Approximating power indices: theoretical and empirical analysis

    Yoram Bachrach;Evangelos Markakis;Ezra Resnick;Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Cake Cutting Algorithms

    Ariel D. Procaccia

  • Gossip-based aggregation of trust in decentralized reputation systems

    Ariel D. Procaccia;Yoram Bachrach;Jeffrey S. Rosenschein

Frequent Co-Authors

Jeffrey S. Rosenschein
Jeffrey S. Rosenschein Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ioannis Caragiannis
Ioannis Caragiannis Aarhus University
Tuomas Sandholm
Tuomas Sandholm Carnegie Mellon University
Moshe Tennenholtz
Moshe Tennenholtz Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Avrim Blum
Avrim Blum Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
Michal Feldman
Michal Feldman Tel Aviv University
Noga Alon
Noga Alon Tel Aviv University
Yiling Chen
Yiling Chen Harvard University
Anupam Datta
Anupam Datta Carnegie Mellon University
David C. Parkes
David C. Parkes Harvard University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring Engineering and Technology in the USA opens doors to a range of online degrees and diverse career paths. Many students combine technical expertise with skills from other disciplines to move into management, communication, or entrepreneurship roles.

For those interested in organizational leadership, pursuing the cheapest online human resources degree can build your knowledge in people management—a valuable asset in tech-driven companies. Communication is equally critical, and earning an online communications masters helps future engineers and technologists convey complex ideas to both technical and non-technical audiences.

If entrepreneurship interests you, consider an online mba entrepreneurship degree to develop the business acumen necessary to launch your own tech startup. For career advancement without the stress of major entrance exams, look for top online mba programs no gmat required. These programs offer flexibility and affordability while building your resume for leadership roles in engineering and tech industries.

Best Scientists Citing Ariel D. Procaccia

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles