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
• Authors: Yuefan Cao, Xiaoyu Li, Yingyu Liang, Zhizhou Sha, Zhenmei Shi, Zhao Song, Jiahao Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism. We prove that optimizing individual fairness is NP-hard, whereas group fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming.
• Score: 24.570596184292384
• License:
• 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

• 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. We theoretically characterize the optimal CF policy and prove its stationarity, which greatly simplifies the search for optimal CF policies. 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)
• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• 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. Despite the prosperity of lightweight embedding-based RSs, a wide diversity is seen in evaluation protocols. 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)
• 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)
• 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.