Search

Peer review assignment algorithms aim to match research papers to suitable expert reviewers, working to maximize the quality of the resulting reviews. A key challenge in designing effective assignment policies is evaluating how changes to the assignment algorithm map to changes in review quality. In this work, we leverage recently proposed policies that introduce randomness in peer-review assignment--in order to mitigate fraud--as a valuable opportunity to evaluate counterfactual assignment policies. Specifically, we exploit how such randomized assignments provide a positive probability of observing the reviews of many assignment policies of interest. To address challenges in applying standard off-policy evaluation methods, such as violations of positivity, we introduce novel methods for partial identification based on monotonicity and Lipschitz smoothness assumptions for the mapping between reviewer-paper covariates and outcomes. We apply our methods to peer-review data from two computer science venues: the TPDP'21 workshop (95 papers and 35 reviewers) and the AAAI'22 conference (8,450 papers and 3,145 reviewers). 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. We find that placing higher weight on text similarity results in higher review quality and that introducing randomization in the reviewer-paper assignment only marginally reduces the review quality. Our methods for partial identification may be of independent interest, while our off-policy approach can likely find use evaluating a broad class of algorithmic matching systems.

Peer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provide initial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update their reviews based on the authors' response. There is mixed evidence regarding whether this process is useful, including frequent anecdotal complaints that reviewers insufficiently update their scores. In this study, we aim to investigate whether reviewers anchor to their original scores when updating their reviews, which serves as a potential explanation for the lack of updates in reviewer scores. We design a novel randomized controlled trial to test if reviewers exhibit anchoring. In the experimental condition, participants initially see a flawed version of a paper that is later corrected, while in the control condition, participants only see the correct version. We take various measures to ensure that in the absence of anchoring, reviewers in the experimental group should revise their scores to be identically distributed to the scores from the control group. Furthermore, we construct the reviewed paper to maximize the difference between the flawed and corrected versions, and employ deception to hide the true experiment purpose. Our randomized controlled trial consists of 108 researchers as participants. First, we find that our intervention was successful at creating a difference in perceived paper quality between the flawed and corrected versions: Using a permutation test with the Mann-Whitney U statistic, we find that the experimental group's initial scores are lower than the control group's scores in both the Evaluation category (Vargha-Delaney A=0.64, p=0.0096) and Overall score (A=0.59, p=0.058). Next, we test for anchoring by comparing the experimental group's revised scores with the control group's scores. We find no significant evidence of anchoring in either the Overall (A=0.50, p=0.61) or Evaluation category (A=0.49, p=0.61)., Comment: 14 pages (19 including references and appendix), 2 figures

There is widespread debate on whether to anonymize author identities in peer review. The key argument for anonymization is to mitigate bias, whereas arguments against anonymization posit various uses of author identities in the review process. The Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) 2023 conference adopted a middle ground by initially anonymizing the author identities from reviewers, revealing them after the reviewer had submitted their initial reviews, and allowing the reviewer to change their review subsequently. We present an analysis of the reviews pertaining to the identification and use of author identities. Our key findings are: (I) A majority of reviewers self-report not knowing and being unable to guess the authors' identities for the papers they were reviewing. (II) After the initial submission of reviews, 7.1% of reviews changed their overall merit score and 3.8% changed their self-reported reviewer expertise. (III) There is a very weak and statistically insignificant correlation of the rank of authors' affiliations with the change in overall merit; there is a weak but statistically significant correlation with respect to change in reviewer expertise. We also conducted an anonymous survey to obtain opinions from reviewers and authors. The main findings from the 200 survey responses are: (i) A vast majority of participants favor anonymizing author identities in some form. (ii) The "middle-ground" initiative of ITCS 2023 was appreciated. (iii) Detecting conflicts of interest is a challenge that needs to be addressed if author identities are anonymized. Overall, these findings support anonymization of author identities in some form (e.g., as was done in ITCS 2023), as long as there is a robust and efficient way to check conflicts of interest.

Many peer-review venues are either using or looking to use algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score"--a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper--and many algorithms have been proposed to compute these scores. However, these algorithms have not been subjected to a principled comparison, making it difficult for stakeholders to choose the algorithm in an evidence-based manner. The key challenge in comparing existing algorithms and developing better algorithms is the lack of the publicly available gold-standard data that would be needed to perform reproducible research. We address this challenge by collecting a novel dataset of similarity scores that we release to the research community. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers who evaluated their expertise in reviewing papers they have read previously. We use this data to compare several popular algorithms employed in computer science conferences and come up with recommendations for stakeholders. Our main findings are as follows. First, all algorithms make a non-trivial amount of error. For the task of ordering two papers in terms of their relevance for a reviewer, the error rates range from 12%-30% in easy cases to 36%-43% in hard cases, highlighting the vital need for more research on the similarity-computation problem. Second, most existing algorithms are designed to work with titles and abstracts of papers, and in this regime the Specter+MFR algorithm performs best. Third, to improve performance, it may be important to develop modern deep-learning based algorithms that can make use of the full texts of papers: the classical TD-IDF algorithm enhanced with full texts of papers is on par with the deep-learning based Specter+MFR that cannot make use of this information.

Many practical applications, ranging from paper-reviewer assignment in peer review to job-applicant matching for hiring, require human decision makers to identify relevant matches by combining their expertise with predictions from machine learning models. In many such model-assisted document matching tasks, the decision makers have stressed the need for assistive information about the model outputs (or the data) to facilitate their decisions. In this paper, we devise a proxy matching task that allows us to evaluate which kinds of assistive information improve decision makers' performance (in terms of accuracy and time). Through a crowdsourced (N=271 participants) study, we find that providing black-box model explanations reduces users' accuracy on the matching task, contrary to the commonly-held belief that they can be helpful by allowing better understanding of the model. On the other hand, custom methods that are designed to closely attend to some task-specific desiderata are found to be effective in improving user performance. Surprisingly, we also find that the users' perceived utility of assistive information is misaligned with their objective utility (measured through their task performance).

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Reviewers in peer review are often miscalibrated: they may be strict, lenient, extreme, moderate, etc. A number of algorithms have previously been proposed to calibrate reviews. Such attempts of calibration can however leak sensitive information about which reviewer reviewed which paper. In this paper, we identify this problem of calibration with privacy, and provide a foundational building block to address it. Specifically, we present a theoretical study of this problem under a simplified-yet-challenging model involving two reviewers, two papers, and an MAP-computing adversary. Our main results establish the Pareto frontier of the tradeoff between privacy (preventing the adversary from inferring reviewer identity) and utility (accepting better papers), and design explicit computationally-efficient algorithms that we prove are Pareto optimal., 31 pages, 6 figures

It is common to evaluate a set of items by soliciting people to rate them. For example, universities ask students to rate the teaching quality of their instructors, and conference organizers ask authors of submissions to evaluate the quality of the reviews. However, in these applications, students often give a higher rating to a course if they receive higher grades in a course, and authors often give a higher rating to the reviews if their papers are accepted to the conference. In this work, we call these external factors the "outcome" experienced by people, and consider the problem of mitigating these outcome-induced biases in the given ratings when some information about the outcome is available. We formulate the information about the outcome as a known partial ordering on the bias. We propose a debiasing method by solving a regularized optimization problem under this ordering constraint, and also provide a carefully designed cross-validation method that adaptively chooses the appropriate amount of regularization. We provide theoretical guarantees on the performance of our algorithm, as well as experimental evaluations.

We consider the issue of strategic behaviour in various peer-assessment tasks, including peer grading of exams or homeworks and peer review in hiring or promotions. When a peer-assessment task is competitive (e.g., when students are graded on a curve), agents may be incentivized to misreport evaluations in order to improve their own final standing. Our focus is on designing methods for detection of such manipulations. Specifically, we consider a setting in which agents evaluate a subset of their peers and output rankings that are later aggregated to form a final ordering. In this paper, we investigate a statistical framework for this problem and design a principled test for detecting strategic behaviour. We prove that our test has strong false alarm guarantees and evaluate its detection ability in practical settings. For this, we design and execute an experiment that elicits strategic behaviour from subjects and release a dataset of patterns of strategic behaviour that may be of independent interest. We then use the collected data to conduct a series of real and semi-synthetic evaluations that demonstrate a strong detection power of our test.

Many conferences rely on paper bidding as a key component of their reviewer assignment procedure. These bids are then taken into account when assigning reviewers to help ensure that each reviewer is assigned to suitable papers. However, despite the benefits of using bids, reliance on paper bidding can allow malicious reviewers to manipulate the paper assignment for unethical purposes (e.g., getting assigned to a friend's paper). Several different approaches to preventing this manipulation have been proposed and deployed. In this paper, we enumerate certain desirable properties that algorithms for addressing bid manipulation should satisfy. We then offer a high-level analysis of various approaches along with directions for future investigation.

Double-blind conferences have engaged in debates over whether to allow authors to post their papers online on arXiv or elsewhere during the review process. Independently, some authors of research papers face the dilemma of whether to put their papers on arXiv due to its pros and cons. We conduct a study to substantiate this debate and dilemma via quantitative measurements. Specifically, we conducted surveys of reviewers in two top-tier double-blind computer science conferences -- ICML 2021 (5361 submissions and 4699 reviewers) and EC 2021 (498 submissions and 190 reviewers). Our two main findings are as follows. First, more than a third of the reviewers self-report searching online for a paper they are assigned to review. Second, outside the review process, we find that preprints from better-ranked affiliations see a weakly higher visibility, with a correlation of 0.06 in ICML and 0.05 in EC. In particular, papers associated with the top-10-ranked affiliations had a visibility of approximately 11% in ICML and 22% in EC, whereas the remaining papers had a visibility of 7% and 18% respectively., Comment: 17 pages, 3 figures

Strategic behavior is a fundamental problem in a variety of real-world applications that require some form of peer assessment, such as peer grading of homeworks, grant proposal review, conference peer review of scientific papers, and peer assessment of employees in organizations. Since an individual's own work is in competition with the submissions they are evaluating, they may provide dishonest evaluations to increase the relative standing of their own submission. This issue is typically addressed by partitioning the individuals and assigning them to evaluate the work of only those from different subsets. Although this method ensures strategyproofness, each submission may require a different type of expertise for effective evaluation. In this paper, we focus on finding an assignment of evaluators to submissions that maximizes assigned evaluators' expertise subject to the constraint of strategyproofness. We analyze the price of strategyproofness: that is, the amount of compromise on the assigned evaluators' expertise required in order to get strategyproofness. We establish several polynomial-time algorithms for strategyproof assignment along with assignment-quality guarantees. Finally, we evaluate the methods on a dataset from conference peer review.

A major impediment to research on improving peer review is the unavailability of peer-review data, since any release of such data must grapple with the sensitivity of the peer review data in terms of protecting identities of reviewers from authors. We posit the need to develop techniques to release peer-review data in a privacy-preserving manner. Identifying this problem, in this paper we propose a framework for privacy-preserving release of certain conference peer-review data -- distributions of ratings, miscalibration, and subjectivity -- with an emphasis on the accuracy (or utility) of the released data. The crux of the framework lies in recognizing that a part of the data pertaining to the reviews is already available in public, and we use this information to post-process the data released by any privacy mechanism in a manner that improves the accuracy (utility) of the data while retaining the privacy guarantees. Our framework works with any privacy-preserving mechanism that operates via releasing perturbed data. We present several positive and negative theoretical results, including a polynomial-time algorithm for improving on the privacy-utility tradeoff.

Peer review is the backbone of academia and humans constitute a cornerstone of this process, being responsible for reviewing papers and making the final acceptance/rejection decisions. Given that human decision making is known to be susceptible to various cognitive biases, it is important to understand which (if any) biases are present in the peer-review process and design the pipeline such that the impact of these biases is minimized. In this work, we focus on the dynamics of between-reviewers discussions and investigate the presence of herding behaviour therein. In that, we aim to understand whether reviewers and more senior decision makers get disproportionately influenced by the first argument presented in the discussion when (in case of reviewers) they form an independent opinion about the paper before discussing it with others. Specifically, in conjunction with the review process of ICML 2020 -- a large, top tier machine learning conference -- we design and execute a randomized controlled trial with the goal of testing for the conditional causal effect of the discussion initiator's opinion on the outcome of a paper.

We consider the issue of biases in scholarly research, specifically, in peer review. There is a long standing debate on whether exposing author identities to reviewers induces biases against certain groups, and our focus is on designing tests to detect the presence of such biases. Our starting point is a remarkable recent work by Tomkins, Zhang and Heavlin which conducted a controlled, large-scale experiment to investigate existence of biases in the peer reviewing of the WSDM conference. We present two sets of results in this paper. The first set of results is negative, and pertains to the statistical tests and the experimental setup used in the work of Tomkins et al. We show that the test employed therein does not guarantee control over false alarm probability and under correlations between relevant variables coupled with any of the following conditions, with high probability, can declare a presence of bias when it is in fact absent: (a) measurement error, (b) model mismatch, (c) reviewer calibration. Moreover, we show that the setup of their experiment may itself inflate false alarm probability if (d) bidding is performed in non-blind manner or (e) popular reviewer assignment procedure is employed. Our second set of results is positive and is built around a novel approach to testing for biases that we propose. We present a general framework for testing for biases in (single vs. double blind) peer review. We then design hypothesis tests that under minimal assumptions guarantee control over false alarm probability and non-trivial power even under conditions (a)--(c) as well as propose an alternative experimental setup which mitigates issues (d) and (e). Finally, we show that no statistical test can improve over the non-parametric tests we consider in terms of the assumptions required to control for the false alarm probability.

Vehicular mobile crowd sensing is a fast-emerging paradigm to collect data about the environment by mounting sensors on vehicles such as taxis. An important problem in vehicular crowd sensing is to design payment mechanisms to incentivize drivers (agents) to collect data, with the overall goal of obtaining the maximum amount of data (across multiple vehicles) for a given budget. Past works on this problem consider a setting where each agent operates in isolation---an assumption which is frequently violated in practice. In this paper, we design an incentive mechanism to incentivize agents who can engage in arbitrary collusions. We then show that in a "homogeneous" setting, our mechanism is optimal, and can do as well as any mechanism which knows the agents' preferences a priori. Moreover, if the agents are non-colluding, then our mechanism automatically does as well as any other non-colluding mechanism. We also show that our proposed mechanism has strong (and asymptotically optimal) guarantees for a more general "heterogeneous" setting. Experiments based on synthesized data and real-world data reveal gains of over 30\% attained by our mechanism compared to past literature.

We consider the problem of automated assignment of papers to reviewers in conference peer review, with a focus on fairness and statistical accuracy. Our fairness objective is to maximize the review quality of the most disadvantaged paper, in contrast to the commonly used objective of maximizing the total quality over all papers. We design an assignment algorithm based on an incremental max-flow procedure that we prove is near-optimally fair. Our statistical accuracy objective is to ensure correct recovery of the papers that should be accepted. We provide a sharp minimax analysis of the accuracy of the peer-review process for a popular objective-score model as well as for a novel subjective-score model that we propose in the paper. Our analysis proves that our proposed assignment algorithm also leads to a near-optimal statistical accuracy. Finally, we design a novel experiment that allows for an objective comparison of various assignment algorithms, and overcomes the inherent difficulty posed by the absence of a ground truth in experiments on peer-review. The results of this experiment as well as of other experiments on synthetic and real data corroborate the theoretical guarantees of our algorithm.

Cardinal scores (numeric ratings) collected from people are well known to suffer from miscalibrations. A popular approach to address this issue is to assume simplistic models of miscalibration (such as linear biases) to de-bias the scores. This approach, however, often fares poorly because people's miscalibrations are typically far more complex and not well understood. In the absence of simplifying assumptions on the miscalibration, it is widely believed by the crowdsourcing community that the only useful information in the cardinal scores is the induced ranking. In this paper, inspired by the framework of Stein's shrinkage, empirical Bayes, and the classic two-envelope problem, we contest this widespread belief. Specifically, we consider cardinal scores with arbitrary (or even adversarially chosen) miscalibrations which are only required to be consistent with the induced ranking. We design estimators which despite making no assumptions on the miscalibration, strictly and uniformly outperform all possible estimators that rely on only the ranking. Our estimators are flexible in that they can be used as a plug-in for a variety of applications, and we provide a proof-of-concept for A/B testing and ranking. Our results thus provide novel insights in the eternal debate between cardinal and ordinal data.

We consider sequential or active ranking of a set of n items based on noisy pairwise comparisons. Items are ranked according to the probability that a given item beats a randomly chosen item, and ranking refers to partitioning the items into sets of pre-specified sizes according to their scores. This notion of ranking includes as special cases the identification of the top-k items and the total ordering of the items. We first analyze a sequential ranking algorithm that counts the number of comparisons won, and uses these counts to decide whether to stop, or to compare another pair of items, chosen based on confidence intervals specified by the data collected up to that point. We prove that this algorithm succeeds in recovering the ranking using a number of comparisons that is optimal up to logarithmic factors. This guarantee does not require any structural properties of the underlying pairwise probability matrix, unlike a significant body of past work on pairwise ranking based on parametric models such as the Thurstone or Bradley-Terry-Luce models. It has been a long-standing open question as to whether or not imposing these parametric assumptions allows for improved ranking algorithms. For stochastic comparison models, in which the pairwise probabilities are bounded away from zero, our second contribution is to resolve this issue by proving a lower bound for parametric models. This shows, perhaps surprisingly, that these popular parametric modeling choices offer at most logarithmic gains for stochastic comparisons., Comment: improved log factor in main result; added discussion on comparison probabilities close to zero; added numerical results

There is a rapidly increasing interest in crowdsourcing for data labeling. By crowdsourcing, a large number of labels can be often quickly gathered at low cost. However, the labels provided by the crowdsourcing workers are usually not of high quality. In this paper, we propose a minimax conditional entropy principle to infer ground truth from noisy crowdsourced labels. Under this principle, we derive a unique probabilistic labeling model jointly parameterized by worker ability and item difficulty. We also propose an objective measurement principle, and show that our method is the only method which satisfies this objective measurement principle. We validate our method through a variety of real crowdsourcing datasets with binary, multiclass or ordinal labels., Comment: 31 pages

Crowdsourcing has gained immense popularity in machine learning applications for obtaining large amounts of labeled data. Crowdsourcing is cheap and fast, but suffers from the problem of low-quality data. To address this fundamental challenge in crowdsourcing, we propose a simple payment mechanism to incentivize workers to answer only the questions that they are sure of and skip the rest. We show that surprisingly, under a mild and natural "no-free-lunch" requirement, this mechanism is the one and only incentive-compatible payment mechanism possible. We also show that among all possible incentive-compatible mechanisms (that may or may not satisfy no-free-lunch), our mechanism makes the smallest possible payment to spammers. We further extend our results to a more general setting in which workers are required to provide a quantized confidence for each question. Interestingly, this unique mechanism takes a "multiplicative" form. The simplicity of the mechanism is an added benefit. In preliminary experiments involving over 900 worker-task pairs, we observe a significant drop in the error rates under this unique mechanism for the same or lower monetary expenditure.

Erasure codes, such as Reed-Solomon (RS) codes, are being increasingly employed in data centers to combat the cost of reliably storing large amounts of data. Although these codes provide optimal storage efficiency, they require significantly high network and disk usage during recovery of missing data. In this paper, we first present a study on the impact of recovery operations of erasure-coded data on the data-center network, based on measurements from Facebook's warehouse cluster in production. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind available in the literature. Our study reveals that recovery of RS-coded data results in a significant increase in network traffic, more than a hundred terabytes per day, in a cluster storing multiple petabytes of RS-coded data. To address this issue, we present a new storage code using our recently proposed "Piggybacking" framework, that reduces the network and disk usage during recovery by 30% in theory, while also being storage optimal and supporting arbitrary design parameters. The implementation of the proposed code in the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) is underway. We use the measurements from the warehouse cluster to show that the proposed code would lead to a reduction of close to fifty terabytes of cross-rack traffic per day., Comment: In proceedings of USENIX HotStorage, San Jose, June 2013