Vulnerability of Text-Matching in ML/AI Conference Reviewer Assignments to Collusions
In the peer review process of top-tier machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) conferences, reviewers are assigned to papers through automated methods. These assignment algorithms consider two main factors: (1) reviewers' expressed interests indicated by their bids for papers, and (2) reviewers' domain expertise inferred from the similarity between the text of their previously published papers and the submitted manuscripts. A significant challenge these conferences face is the existence of collusion rings, where groups of researchers manipulate the assignment process to review each other's papers, providing positive evaluations regardless of their actual quality. Most efforts to combat collusion rings have focused on preventing bid manipulation, under the assumption that the text similarity component is secure. In this paper, we demonstrate that even in the absence of bidding, colluding reviewers and authors can exploit the machine learning based text-matching component of reviewer assignment used at top ML/AI venues to get assigned their target paper. We also highlight specific vulnerabilities within this system and offer suggestions to enhance its robustness.
Code (1)
Tasks
Text Matchingtext similaritySimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
What Factors Should Paper-Reviewer Assignments Rely On? Community Perspectives on Issues and Ideals in Conference Peer-Review
Both scientific progress and individual researcher careers depend on the quality of peer review, which in turn depends on paper-reviewer matching. Surprisingly, this problem has been mostly approached as an automated rec…
Match made by BERT? Towards Interpretable Paper-Reviewer Assignments in NLP
Both scientific progress and individual researcher careers depend on the quality of peer review, which in turn depends on paper-reviewer matching. Surprisingly, this problem has been mostly approached simply as an automa…
Matching Papers and Reviewers at Large Conferences
Peer-reviewed conferences, the main publication venues in CS, rely critically on matching highly qualified reviewers for each paper. Because of the growing scale of these conferences, the tight timelines on which they op…
Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments
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…
Submission-Aware Reviewer Profiling for Reviewer Recommender System
Assigning qualified, unbiased and interested reviewers to paper submissions is vital for maintaining the integrity and quality of the academic publishing system and providing valuable reviews to authors. However, matchin…
Recommendation Systems