A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07079v2
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:47:45 GMT
• Title: A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review
• Authors: Tanner Fiez, Nihar B. Shah, Lillian Ratliff
• Abstract summary: We present an algorithm called SUPER*, inspired by the A* algorithm, for this goal. Under a community model for the similarities, we prove that SUPER* is near-optimal whereas the popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. In experiments on real data from ICLR 2018 and synthetic data, we find that SUPER* considerably outperforms baselines deployed in existing systems.
• Score: 39.99497980352629
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A number of applications involve sequential arrival of users, and require showing each user an ordering of items. A prime example (which forms the focus of this paper) is the bidding process in conference peer review where reviewers enter the system sequentially, each reviewer needs to be shown the list of submitted papers, and the reviewer then "bids" to review some papers. The order of the papers shown has a significant impact on the bids due to primacy effects. In deciding on the ordering of papers to show, there are two competing goals: (i) obtaining sufficiently many bids for each paper, and (ii) satisfying reviewers by showing them relevant items. In this paper, we begin by developing a framework to study this problem in a principled manner. We present an algorithm called SUPER*, inspired by the A* algorithm, for this goal. Theoretically, we show a local optimality guarantee of our algorithm and prove that popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. Moreover, under a community model for the similarities, we prove that SUPER* is near-optimal whereas the popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. In experiments on real data from ICLR 2018 and synthetic data, we find that SUPER* considerably outperforms baselines deployed in existing systems, consistently reducing the number of papers with fewer than requisite bids by 50-75% or more, and is also robust to various real world complexities.

Related papers

• Self-Calibrated Listwise Reranking with Large Language Models [137.6557607279876]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been employed in reranking tasks through a sequence-to-sequence approach. This reranking paradigm requires a sliding window strategy to iteratively handle larger candidate sets. We propose a novel self-calibrated listwise reranking method, which aims to leverage LLMs to produce global relevance scores for ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T10:31:31Z)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• RelevAI-Reviewer: A Benchmark on AI Reviewers for Survey Paper Relevance [0.8089605035945486]
  We propose RelevAI-Reviewer, an automatic system that conceptualizes the task of survey paper review as a classification problem. We introduce a novel dataset comprised of 25,164 instances. Each instance contains one prompt and four candidate papers, each varying in relevance to the prompt. We develop a machine learning (ML) model capable of determining the relevance of each paper and identifying the most pertinent one.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T06:42:32Z)
• A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problem [117.59690218507565]
  "Similarity score" is a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers. For the task of ordering two papers in terms of their relevance for a reviewer, the error rates range from 12%-30% in easy cases to 36%-43% in hard cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:15:03Z)
• Document Provenance and Authentication through Authorship Classification [5.2545206693029884]
  We propose an ensemble-based text-processing framework for the classification of single and multi-authored documents. The proposed framework incorporates several state-of-the-art text classification algorithms. The framework is evaluated on a large-scale benchmark dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T12:26:03Z)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)
• CODER: An efficient framework for improving retrieval through COntextualized Document Embedding Reranking [11.635294568328625]
  We present a framework for improving the performance of a wide class of retrieval models at minimal computational cost. It utilizes precomputed document representations extracted by a base dense retrieval method. It incurs a negligible computational overhead on top of any first-stage method at run time, allowing it to be easily combined with any state-of-the-art dense retrieval method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T10:25:26Z)
• Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
  We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores. We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.