paper-with-me

홈 › Papers

A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review

2022-06-24 · Steven Jecmen, Minji Yoon, Vincent Conitzer, Nihar B. Shah, Fei Fang

In conference peer review, reviewers are often asked to provide "bids" on each submitted paper that express their interest in reviewing that paper. A paper assignment algorithm then uses these bids (along with other data) to compute a high-quality assignment of reviewers to papers. However, this process has been exploited by malicious reviewers who strategically bid in order to unethically manipulate the paper assignment, crucially undermining the peer review process. For example, these reviewers may aim to get assigned to a friend's paper as part of a quid-pro-quo deal. A critical impediment towards creating and evaluating methods to mitigate this issue is the lack of any publicly-available data on malicious paper bidding. In this work, we collect and publicly release a novel dataset to fill this gap, collected from a mock conference activity where participants were instructed to bid either honestly or maliciously. We further provide a descriptive analysis of the bidding behavior, including our categorization of different strategies employed by participants. Finally, we evaluate the ability of each strategy to manipulate the assignment, and also evaluate the performance of some simple algorithms meant to detect malicious bidding. The performance of these detection algorithms can be taken as a baseline for future research on detecting malicious bidding.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2207.02303

Code (1)

sjecmen/malicious_bidding_dataset 공식 구현

Tasks

Descriptive

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Tradeoffs in Preventing Manipulation in Paper Bidding for Reviewer Assignment

2022-07-22 · Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah, Fei Fang, Vincent Conitzer

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 …

CABAL: Multi-Agent Simulacra for Tracing the Effects of Collusive Bidding in Peer Review

2026-09-04 · Jicheng Zhou, Kemou Li, Kahim Wong, Zheyuan Li 외 arxiv

Recent reports during the AAAI-27 review cycle highlight the risk of reviewers coordinating bids for reciprocal assignment advantage. Prior work treats bidding, reviewer assignment, and review manipulation as separate st…

On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding

2024-02-12 · Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah, Fei Fang, Leman Akoglu

A major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences is the existence of "collusion rings" between reviewers. In such collusion rings, reviewers who have also submitted their own papers to the confer…

Fraud Detectiontext similarity

A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review

2020-06-27 · Tanner Fiez, Nihar B. Shah, Lillian Ratliff

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 whe…

Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments

2020-06-29 · NeurIPS 2020 12 · Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah 외

We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the…