Search Results for author:
Found 7 papers, 6 papers with code
On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding
A major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences is the existence of "collusion rings" between reviewers.
Counterfactual Evaluation of Peer-Review Assignment Policies
We consider estimates of (i) the effect on review quality when changing weights in the assignment algorithm, e. g., weighting reviewers' bids vs. textual similarity (between the review's past papers and the submission), and (ii) the "cost of randomization", capturing the difference in expected quality between the perturbed and unperturbed optimal match.
Tradeoffs in Preventing Manipulation in Paper Bidding for Reviewer Assignment
Many conferences rely on paper bidding as a key component of their reviewer assignment procedure.
A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review
The performance of these detection algorithms can be taken as a baseline for future research on detecting malicious bidding.
Strategyproofing Peer Assessment via Partitioning: The Price in Terms of Evaluators' Expertise
Finally, we evaluate the methods on a dataset from conference peer review.
Near-Optimal Reviewer Splitting in Two-Phase Paper Reviewing and Conference Experiment Design
Many scientific conferences employ a two-phase paper review process, where some papers are assigned additional reviewers after the initial reviews are submitted.
Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments
We further consider the problem of restricting the joint probability that certain suspect pairs of reviewers are assigned to certain papers, and show that this problem is NP-hard for arbitrary constraints on these joint probabilities but efficiently solvable for a practical special case.
