A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review

A number of applications involve sequential arrival of users, and require showing each user an ordering of items. A prime example (which forms the focus of this paper) is the bidding process in conference peer review where reviewers enter the system sequentially, each reviewer needs to be shown the list of submitted papers, and the reviewer then "bids" to review some papers. The order of the papers shown has a significant impact on the bids due to primacy effects. In deciding on the ordering of papers to show, there are two competing goals: (i) obtaining sufficiently many bids for each paper, and (ii) satisfying reviewers by showing them relevant items. In this paper, we begin by developing a framework to study this problem in a principled manner. We present an algorithm called SUPER*, inspired by the A* algorithm, for this goal. Theoretically, we show a local optimality guarantee of our algorithm and prove that popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. Moreover, under a community model for the similarities, we prove that SUPER* is near-optimal whereas the popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. In experiments on real data from ICLR 2018 and synthetic data, we find that SUPER* considerably outperforms baselines deployed in existing systems, consistently reducing the number of papers with fewer than requisite bids by 50-75% or more, and is also robust to various real world complexities.

[1]  Kenneth Church Reviewing the Reviewers , 2005, Computational Linguistics.

[2]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratings , 2018, AAMAS.

[3]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Click Models for Web Search , 2015, Click Models for Web Search.

[4]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Mapping the Bid Behavior of Conference Referees , 2006, J. Informetrics.

[5]  Inderjit S. Dhillon,et al.  Co-clustering documents and words using bipartite spectral graph partitioning , 2001, KDD '01.

[6]  Richard S. Zemel,et al.  The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system , 2013 .

[7]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Fair Learning-to-Rank from Implicit Feedback , 2019, ArXiv.

[8]  Yi Sun,et al.  Multi-objective Relevance Ranking , 2019, eCOM@SIGIR.

[9]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Geneva G. Belford,et al.  Multi-aspect expertise matching for review assignment , 2008, CIKM '08.

[11]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Process , 2017, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[12]  Utkarsh Porwal,et al.  Position Bias Estimation for Unbiased Learning-to-Rank in eCommerce Search , 2019, SPIRE.

[13]  Christian Posse,et al.  Multiple objective optimization in recommender systems , 2012, RecSys.

[14]  Min Zhang,et al.  Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths , 1968, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[16]  Daniel J. Veit,et al.  More than fun and money. Worker Motivation in Crowdsourcing - A Study on Mechanical Turk , 2011, AMCIS.

[17]  Louise Hall,et al.  Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review , 2015, 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

[20]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals , 1985 .

[21]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  Catch Me if I Can: Detecting Strategic Behaviour in Peer Assessment , 2020, AAAI.

[22]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[23]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  On Testing for Biases in Peer Review , 2019, NeurIPS.

[24]  Cheng Long,et al.  On Good and Fair Paper-Reviewer Assignment , 2013, 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining.

[25]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Communities in Networks , 2009, ArXiv.

[26]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments , 2020, NeurIPS.

[27]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  Assigning Papers to Referees , 2009, Algorithmica.

[28]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Paper Matching with Local Fairness Constraints , 2019, KDD.

[29]  N. Black,et al.  What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? , 1998, JAMA.

[30]  Omer Lev,et al.  Strategyproof peer selection using randomization, partitioning, and apportionment , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  SubSift: a novel application of the vector space model to support the academic research process , 2010, WAPA.

[32]  Guillaume Cabanac,et al.  Capitalizing on order effects in the bids of peer-reviewed conferences to secure reviews by expert referees , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The Conference Paper Assignment Problem: Using Order Weighted Averages to Assign Indivisible Goods , 2017, AAAI.

[34]  Jie Tang,et al.  Expertise Matching via Constraint-Based Optimization , 2010, Web Intelligence.

[35]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  On the Privacy-Utility Tradeoff in Peer-Review Data Analysis , 2020, ArXiv.

[36]  R. Graham,et al.  Spearman's Footrule as a Measure of Disarray , 1977 .

[37]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents , 2000, SIGIR '00.

[38]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System , 1991 .

[39]  M. Hossain,et al.  Users' motivation to participate in online crowdsourcing platforms , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research.

[40]  Bhavana Dalvi,et al.  A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications , 2018, NAACL.

[41]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  Choosing How to Choose Papers , 2018, ArXiv.

[42]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Lalit Jain,et al.  Firing Bandits: Optimizing Crowdfunding , 2018, ICML.

[44]  Nir Ailon,et al.  Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering , 2008 .

[45]  Aleksandrs Slivkins,et al.  Bandits with Knapsacks , 2013, 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[46]  Deepak Agarwal,et al.  Click shaping to optimize multiple objectives , 2011, KDD.

[47]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Calibrating the Scores of Biased Reviewers : The Linear vs . the Nonlinear Model 1 , 2012 .

[48]  Stefano Ferilli,et al.  GRAPE: An Expert Review Assignment Component for Scientific Conference Management Systems , 2005, IEA/AIE.

[49]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach , 2007, ICML '07.

[50]  Stefan Thurner,et al.  Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average , 2010, 1008.4324.

[51]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Stochastically Transitive Models for Pairwise Comparisons: Statistical and Computational Issues , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[52]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  PeerReview4All: Fair and Accurate Reviewer Assignment in Peer Review , 2018, ALT.

[53]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  Computational support for academic peer review , 2017, Commun. ACM.

[54]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Policy Learning for Fairness in Ranking , 2019, NeurIPS.

[55]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals : Science, Technology & Human Values , 1987 .

[56]  Maksims Volkovs,et al.  Learning to rank with multiple objective functions , 2011, WWW.

[57]  Jun Wang,et al.  Optimizing multiple objectives in collaborative filtering , 2010, RecSys '10.

[58]  Mark Ware,et al.  Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - Results from an international study , 2008, Inf. Serv. Use.

[59]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  Loss Functions, Axioms, and Peer Review , 2018 .