Dissecting Submission Limit in Desk-Rejections: A Mathematical Analysis of Fairness in AI Conference Policies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00690v1
• Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 06:29:23 GMT
• Title: Dissecting Submission Limit in Desk-Rejections: A Mathematical Analysis of Fairness in AI Conference Policies
• Abstract summary: We propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism.<n>We prove that optimizing individual fairness is NP-hard, whereas group fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming.
• Score: 24.570596184292384
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI research surges in both impact and volume, conferences have imposed submission limits to maintain paper quality and alleviate organizational pressure. In this work, we examine the fairness of desk-rejection systems under submission limits and reveal that existing practices can result in substantial inequities. Specifically, we formally define the paper submission limit problem and identify a critical dilemma: when the number of authors exceeds three, it becomes impossible to reject papers solely based on excessive submissions without negatively impacting innocent authors. Thus, this issue may unfairly affect early-career researchers, as their submissions may be penalized due to co-authors with significantly higher submission counts, while senior researchers with numerous papers face minimal consequences. To address this, we propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism and formally define two fairness metrics: individual fairness and group fairness. We prove that optimizing individual fairness is NP-hard, whereas group fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming. Through case studies, we demonstrate that our proposed system ensures greater equity than existing methods, including those used in CVPR 2025, offering a more socially just approach to managing excessive submissions in AI conferences.

Related papers

• Partial Fairness Awareness: Belief-Guided Strategic Mechanism for Strategic Agents [23.40393298376199]
  We propose the problem of partial fairness awareness (PFA)<n>We introduce a belief-guided strategic mechanism, wherein agents iteratively interact with the decision system and maintain a belief distribution over the candidate set of fairness constraints.<n>This belief-guided process enables agents, through iterative interaction and feedback, to update their belief distribution over the candidate set, thereby gradually aligning their belief with the grounding fairness constraint employed by the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T17:53:43Z)
• Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agents [38.13598146684529]
  A malicious actor deploys AI agents to generate and submit a large volume of superficially plausible but low-quality papers.<n>Under a relatively stable acceptance rate, this dilution can systematically increase the publication probability of a small, targeted set of legitimate papers.<n>We propose and evaluate a range of mitigation strategies, and argue that durable protection will require system-level policy and incentive reforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T03:07:15Z)
• CDRRM: Contrast-Driven Rubric Generation for Reliable and Interpretable Reward Modeling [61.75914342638658]
  CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Reward Model) is a framework for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment.<n>This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T07:15:23Z)
• Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanism [10.746401441903174]
  We introduce an author-assisted mechanism to facilitate the selection of best paper awards.<n>Our method employs the Isotonic Mechanism for eliciting authors' assessments of their own submissions.<n>We prove that truthfulness holds even when the utility function is merely nondecreasing and additive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T18:30:42Z)
• Commitment Checklist: Auditing Author Commitments in Peer Review [55.67642089544162]
  We present a large-scale audit of author commitments using large language models (LLMs) to compare rebuttals against camera-ready versions.<n>We find that while a majority of promised changes are implemented, a significant share (about 25%) are not, with "missing experiments" among the most frequently unfulfilled.<n>We propose the idea of Author Commitment Checklist, which would alert authors and organizers to unaddressed promises.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T05:37:09Z)
• Fairness-Aware Reinforcement Learning (FAReL): A Framework for Transparent and Balanced Sequential Decision-Making [41.53741129864172]
  Equity in real-world sequential decision problems can be enforced using fairness-aware methods.<n>We propose a framework where multiple trade-offs can be explored.<n>We show that our framework learns policies that are more fair across multiple scenarios, with only minor loss in performance reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T11:42:14Z)
• Accept More, Reject Less: Reducing up to 19% Unnecessary Desk-Rejections over 11 Years of ICLR Data [19.69454743728659]
  Many AI conferences enforce strict per-author submission limits and to desk-reject any excess papers by simple ID order.<n>We develop a practical algorithm based on linear programming relaxation and a rounding scheme.<n>Under extensive evaluation on 11 years of real-world ICLR data, our method preserves up to $19.23%$ more papers without violating any author limits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T05:23:44Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Efficient Inference for Large Reasoning Models: A Survey [74.17203483365171]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) significantly improve the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) by learning to reason.<n>However, their deliberative reasoning process leads to inefficiencies in token usage, memory consumption, and inference time.<n>This survey provides a review of efficient inference methods designed specifically for LRMs, focusing on mitigating token inefficiency while preserving the reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T13:27:46Z)
• DocMIA: Document-Level Membership Inference Attacks against DocVQA Models [52.13818827581981]
  We introduce two novel membership inference attacks tailored specifically to DocVQA models. Our methods outperform existing state-of-the-art membership inference attacks across a variety of DocVQA models and datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T00:58:21Z)
• Counterfactually Fair Reinforcement Learning via Sequential Data Preprocessing [13.34215548232296]
  Counterfactual fairness (CF) offers a promising statistical tool grounded in causal inference to formulate and study fairness.<n>We theoretically characterize the optimal CF policy and prove its stationarity, which greatly simplifies the search for optimal CF policies.<n>We prove and then validate our policy learning approach in controlling unfairness and attaining optimal value through simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T22:27:44Z)
• Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing [0.0]
  The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act takes effect on 1 August 2024. High-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards. We propose a novel framework, which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:35:34Z)
• A Thorough Performance Benchmarking on Lightweight Embedding-based Recommender Systems [67.52782366565658]
  State-of-the-art recommender systems (RSs) depend on categorical features, which ecoded by embedding vectors, resulting in excessively large embedding tables.<n>Despite the prosperity of lightweight embedding-based RSs, a wide diversity is seen in evaluation protocols.<n>This study investigates various LERS' performance, efficiency, and cross-task transferability via a thorough benchmarking process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T07:45:00Z)
• On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding [71.43634536456844]
  Collusion rings pose a major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences. One approach to solve this problem would be to detect the colluding reviewers from their manipulated bids. No research has yet established that detecting collusion rings is even possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T18:12:09Z)
• 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)
• Modeling the Q-Diversity in a Min-max Play Game for Robust Optimization [61.39201891894024]
  Group distributionally robust optimization (group DRO) can minimize the worst-case loss over pre-defined groups. We reformulate the group DRO framework by proposing Q-Diversity. Characterized by an interactive training mode, Q-Diversity relaxes the group identification from annotation into direct parameterization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T07:02:27Z)
• Formalizing the Problem of Side Effect Regularization [81.97441214404247]
  We propose a formal criterion for side effect regularization via the assistance game framework. In these games, the agent solves a partially observable Markov decision process. We show that this POMDP is solved by trading off the proxy reward with the agent's ability to achieve a range of future tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T16:36:13Z)
• You Are the Best Reviewer of Your Own Papers: The Isotonic Mechanism [1.7741566627076264]
  We introduce the Isotonic Mechanism to enhance the accuracy of noisy review scores. Authors with multiple submissions are required to rank their papers in descending order of perceived quality. adjusted scores are shown to be more accurate than the raw scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-14T14:35:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Public Bayesian Persuasion: Being Almost Optimal and Almost Persuasive [57.47546090379434]
  We study the public persuasion problem in the general setting with: (i) arbitrary state spaces; (ii) arbitrary action spaces; (iii) arbitrary sender's utility functions. We provide a quasi-polynomial time bi-criteria approximation algorithm for arbitrary public persuasion problems that, in specific settings, yields a QPTAS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T18:59:18Z)

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.