No Agreement Without Loss: Learning and Social Choice in Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.02144v2
• Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:42:56 GMT
• Title: No Agreement Without Loss: Learning and Social Choice in Peer Review
• Authors: Pablo Barcel\'o and Mauricio Duarte and Crist\'obal Rojas and Tomasz Steifer
• Abstract summary: It may be assumed that each reviewer has her own mapping from the set of features to a recommendation. This introduces an element of arbitrariness known as commensuration bias. Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia proposed to aggregate reviewer's mapping by minimizing certain loss functions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In peer review systems, reviewers are often asked to evaluate various features of submissions, such as technical quality or novelty. A score is given to each of the predefined features and based on these the reviewer has to provide an overall quantitative recommendation. It may be assumed that each reviewer has her own mapping from the set of features to a recommendation, and that different reviewers have different mappings in mind. This introduces an element of arbitrariness known as commensuration bias. In this paper we discuss a framework, introduced by Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia, and then applied by the organizers of the AAAI 2022 conference. Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia proposed to aggregate reviewer's mapping by minimizing certain loss functions, and studied axiomatic properties of this approach, in the sense of social choice theory. We challenge several of the results and assumptions used in their work and report a number of negative results. On the one hand, we study a trade-off between some of the axioms proposed and the ability of the method to properly capture agreements of the majority of reviewers. On the other hand, we show that dropping a certain unrealistic assumption has dramatic effects, including causing the method to be discontinuous.

Related papers

• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• GLIMPSE: Pragmatically Informative Multi-Document Summarization for Scholarly Reviews [25.291384842659397]
  We introduce sys, a summarization method designed to offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of scholarly reviews. Unlike traditional consensus-based methods, sys extracts both common and unique opinions from the reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T15:27:01Z)
• Submission-Aware Reviewer Profiling for Reviewer Recommender System [26.382772998002523]
  We propose an approach that learns from each abstract published by a potential reviewer the topics studied and the explicit context in which the reviewer studied the topics. Our experiments show a significant, consistent improvement in precision when compared with the existing methods. The new approach has been deployed successfully at top-tier conferences in the last two years.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T12:18:02Z)
• Measuring "Why" in Recommender Systems: a Comprehensive Survey on the Evaluation of Explainable Recommendation [87.82664566721917]
  This survey is based on more than 100 papers from top-tier conferences like IJCAI, AAAI, TheWebConf, Recsys, UMAP, and IUI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-14T02:58:55Z)
• Learning Opinion Summarizers by Selecting Informative Reviews [81.47506952645564]
  We collect a large dataset of summaries paired with user reviews for over 31,000 products, enabling supervised training. The content of many reviews is not reflected in the human-written summaries, and, thus, the summarizer trained on random review subsets hallucinates. We formulate the task as jointly learning to select informative subsets of reviews and summarizing the opinions expressed in these subsets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T15:01:43Z)
• SIFN: A Sentiment-aware Interactive Fusion Network for Review-based Item Recommendation [48.1799451277808]
  We propose a Sentiment-aware Interactive Fusion Network (SIFN) for review-based item recommendation. We first encode user/item reviews via BERT and propose a light-weighted sentiment learner to extract semantic features of each review. Then, we propose a sentiment prediction task that guides the sentiment learner to extract sentiment-aware features via explicit sentiment labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-18T08:04:38Z)
• Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments [96.114824979298]
  Three important challenges in conference peer review are maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers and "torpedo reviewing" We present a framework that brings all these challenges under a common umbrella and present a (randomized) algorithm for reviewer assignment. Our algorithms can limit the chance that any malicious reviewer gets assigned to their desired paper to 50% while producing assignments with over 90% of the total optimal similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-29T23:55:53Z)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)
• How Useful are Reviews for Recommendation? A Critical Review and Potential Improvements [8.471274313213092]
  We investigate a growing body of work that seeks to improve recommender systems through the use of review text. Our initial findings reveal several discrepancies in reported results, partly due to copying results across papers despite changes in experimental settings or data pre-processing. Further investigation calls for discussion on a much larger problem about the "importance" of user reviews for recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-25T16:30:05Z)

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.