Which Coauthor Should I Nominate in My 99 ICLR Submissions? A Mathematical Analysis of the ICLR 2026 Reciprocal Reviewer Nomination Policy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17950v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 01:21:29 GMT
• Title: Which Coauthor Should I Nominate in My 99 ICLR Submissions? A Mathematical Analysis of the ICLR 2026 Reciprocal Reviewer Nomination Policy
• Abstract summary: ICLR 2026 introduced a reviewer nomination policy: each submission must nominate one of its authors as a reviewer, and any paper nominating an irresponsible reviewer is desk-rejected.<n>We formalize and analyze three variants of the desk-rejection risk minimization problem.<n>We then introduce hard and soft nomination limit variants that constrain how many papers may nominate the same author, preventing widespread failures if one author is irresponsible.
• Score: 11.011505065410354
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid growth of AI conference submissions has created an overwhelming reviewing burden. To alleviate this, recent venues such as ICLR 2026 introduced a reviewer nomination policy: each submission must nominate one of its authors as a reviewer, and any paper nominating an irresponsible reviewer is desk-rejected. We study this new policy from the perspective of author welfare. Assuming each author carries a probability of being irresponsible, we ask: how can authors (or automated systems) nominate reviewers to minimize the risk of desk rejections? We formalize and analyze three variants of the desk-rejection risk minimization problem. The basic problem, which minimizes expected desk rejections, is solved optimally by a simple greedy algorithm. We then introduce hard and soft nomination limit variants that constrain how many papers may nominate the same author, preventing widespread failures if one author is irresponsible. These formulations connect to classical optimization frameworks, including minimum-cost flow and linear programming, allowing us to design efficient, principled nomination strategies. Our results provide the first theoretical study for reviewer nomination policies, offering both conceptual insights and practical directions for authors to wisely choose which co-author should serve as the nominated reciprocal reviewer.

Related papers

• PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress [130.58520199343707]
  PaperDoctor is an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations.<n>First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments.<n>Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion.<n>Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:08:11Z)
• Submission Responsibility Matters: Role-Aware Submission Quotas under Coauthorship [17.658093330392052]
  Author-level submission quotas are increasingly used to control peer-review load.<n>Recent coauthorship-sensitive quota rules conflate review burden, authorship credit, and submission responsibility.<n>We propose a role-aware quota framework that assigns author-specific quota costs based on constrained roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T13:27:14Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• 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)
• Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review [53.99984738447279]
  Recent work frames this task as automatic text generation, underusing author expertise and intent.<n>We introduce REspGen, a generation framework that integrates explicit author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement.<n>To support this formulation, we construct Re$3$Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response--revision triplets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:07:10Z)
• Incorporating Self-Rewriting into Large Language Model Reasoning Reinforcement [54.63337314382886]
  We introduce self-rewriting framework, where a model rewrites its own reasoning texts, and subsequently learns from the rewritten reasoning to improve internal thought process quality.<n>For algorithm design, we propose a selective rewriting approach wherein only "simple" samples, defined by the model's consistent correctness, are rewritten.<n>Experiments on diverse tasks with different model sizes validate the effectiveness of self-rewriting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T13:10:52Z)
• BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers? [21.78901120638025]
  We investigate whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems.<n>Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments.<n>Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T18:37:11Z)
• ReviewerToo: Should AI Join The Program Committee? A Look At The Future of Peer Review [23.630458187587223]
  ReviewerToo is a framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review.<n>It supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria.<n>We show how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T23:53:19Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• 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)
• Dissecting Submission Limit in Desk-Rejections: A Mathematical Analysis of Fairness in AI Conference Policies [24.570596184292384]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T06:29:23Z)
• The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review [49.43514488610211]
  Author-provided rankings could be leveraged to improve peer review processes at machine learning conferences.<n>We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using the author-provided rankings.<n>We propose several cautious, low-risk applications of the Isotonic Mechanism and author-provided rankings in peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
• Socratic Reasoning Improves Positive Text Rewriting [49.32560132826547]
  Reframing a negative into a positive thought is at the crux of several cognitive approaches to mental health and psychotherapy.<n>We develop a novel framework called textscSocraticReframe to rationalize the thought rewriting process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T15:05:06Z)
• 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)

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.