paper-with-me

Papers

Calibrating “Cheap Signals” in Peer Review without a Prior

2023-09-21 · NeurIPS 2023 11

Peer review lies at the core of the academic process, but even well-intentioned reviewers can still provide noisy ratings. While ranking papers by average ratings may reduce noise, varying noise levels and systematic biases stemming from ``cheap'' signals (e.g. author identity, proof length) can lead to unfairness. Detecting and correcting bias is challenging, as ratings are subjective and unverifiable. Unlike previous works relying on prior knowledge or historical data, we propose a one-shot noise calibration process without any prior information. We ask reviewers to predict others' scores and use these predictions for calibration. Assuming reviewers adjust their predictions according to the noise, we demonstrate that the calibrated score results in a more robust ranking compared to average ratings, even with varying noise levels and biases. In detail, we show that the error probability of the calibrated score approaches zero as the number of reviewers increases and is significantly lower compared to average ratings when the number of reviewers is small.Submission Number: 1655

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

2026-03-20 · Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan 외 arxiv

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But…

A Neural Citation Count Prediction Model based on Peer Review Text

2019-11-01 · IJCNLP 2019 11 · Siqing Li, Wayne Xin Zhao, Eddy Jing Yin, Ji-Rong Wen

Citation count prediction (CCP) has been an important research task for automatically estimating the future impact of a scholarly paper. Previous studies mainly focus on extracting or mining useful features from the pape…

Prediction

Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review

2026-05-24 · Buxin Su, Jiayao Zhang, Natalie Collina, Yuling Yan 외 arxiv

This article is the rejoinder to ``The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review,'' to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion. To address t…

Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation

2026-05-04 · Joachim Baumann, Jiaxin Pei, Sanmi Koyejo, Dirk Hovy arxiv

Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical c…

Sem-Detect: Semantic Level Detection of AI Generated Peer-Reviews

2026-05-20 · André V. Duarte, Brian Tufts, Aditya Oke, Fei Fang 외 arxiv

How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also …