No more Reviewer #2: Subverting Automatic Paper-Reviewer Assignment using Adversarial Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14443v1
• Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:34:27 GMT
• Title: No more Reviewer #2: Subverting Automatic Paper-Reviewer Assignment using Adversarial Learning
• Authors: Thorsten Eisenhofer, Erwin Quiring, Jonas M\"oller, Doreen Riepel, Thorsten Holz, Konrad Rieck
• Abstract summary: We show that this automation can be manipulated using adversarial learning. We propose an attack that adapts a given paper so that it misleads the assignment and selects its own reviewers.
• Score: 25.70062566419791
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The number of papers submitted to academic conferences is steadily rising in many scientific disciplines. To handle this growth, systems for automatic paper-reviewer assignments are increasingly used during the reviewing process. These systems use statistical topic models to characterize the content of submissions and automate the assignment to reviewers. In this paper, we show that this automation can be manipulated using adversarial learning. We propose an attack that adapts a given paper so that it misleads the assignment and selects its own reviewers. Our attack is based on a novel optimization strategy that alternates between the feature space and problem space to realize unobtrusive changes to the paper. To evaluate the feasibility of our attack, we simulate the paper-reviewer assignment of an actual security conference (IEEE S&P) with 165 reviewers on the program committee. Our results show that we can successfully select and remove reviewers without access to the assignment system. Moreover, we demonstrate that the manipulated papers remain plausible and are often indistinguishable from benign submissions.

Related papers

• Analysis of the ICML 2023 Ranking Data: Can Authors' Opinions of Their Own Papers Assist Peer Review in Machine Learning? [52.00419656272129]
  We conducted an experiment during the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) We received 1,342 rankings, each from a distinct author, pertaining to 2,592 submissions. We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using author-provided rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
• 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)
• Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review [13.424398627546788]
  We propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T17:27:39Z)
• Verifying the Robustness of Automatic Credibility Assessment [79.08422736721764]
  Text classification methods have been widely investigated as a way to detect content of low credibility. In some cases insignificant changes in input text can mislead the models. We introduce BODEGA: a benchmark for testing both victim models and attack methods on misinformation detection tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-14T16:11:47Z)
• A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review [84.68308372858755]
  Malicious reviewers strategically bid in order to unethically manipulate the paper assignment. A critical impediment towards creating and evaluating methods to mitigate this issue is the lack of publicly-available data on malicious paper bidding. We release a novel dataset, collected from a mock conference activity where participants were instructed to bid either honestly or maliciously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-24T20:23:33Z)
• Generating Summaries for Scientific Paper Review [29.12631698162247]
  The increase of submissions for top venues in machine learning and NLP has caused a problem of excessive burden on reviewers. An automatic system for assisting with the reviewing process could be a solution for ameliorating the problem. In this paper, we explore automatic review summary generation for scientific papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T21:43:53Z)
• 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)
• ProtoTransformer: A Meta-Learning Approach to Providing Student Feedback [54.142719510638614]
  In this paper, we frame the problem of providing feedback as few-shot classification. A meta-learner adapts to give feedback to student code on a new programming question from just a few examples by instructors. Our approach was successfully deployed to deliver feedback to 16,000 student exam-solutions in a programming course offered by a tier 1 university.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-23T22:41:28Z)
• Making Paper Reviewing Robust to Bid Manipulation Attacks [44.34601846490532]
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that some reviewers bid on papers by "friends" or colluding authors. We develop a novel approach for paper bidding and assignment that is much more robust against such attacks. In addition to being more robust, the quality of our paper review assignments is comparable to that of current, non-robust assignment approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-09T21:24:16Z)

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.