Which Coauthor Should I Nominate in My 99 ICLR Submissions? A Mathematical Analysis of the ICLR 2026 Reciprocal Reviewer Nomination Policy
The rapid growth of AI conference submissions has created an overwhelming reviewing burden. To alleviate this, recent venues such as ICLR 2026 introduced a reviewer nomination policy: each submission must nominate one of its authors as a reviewer, and any paper nominating an irresponsible reviewer is desk-rejected. We study this new policy from the perspective of author welfare. Assuming each author carries a probability of being irresponsible, we ask: how can authors (or automated systems) nominate reviewers to minimize the risk of desk rejections? We formalize and analyze three variants of the desk-rejection risk minimization problem. The basic problem, which minimizes expected desk rejections, is solved optimally by a simple greedy algorithm. We then introduce hard and soft nomination limit variants that constrain how many papers may nominate the same author, preventing widespread failures if one author is irresponsible. These formulations connect to classical optimization frameworks, including minimum-cost flow and linear programming, allowing us to design efficient, principled nomination strategies. Our results provide the first theoretical study for reviewer nomination policies, offering both conceptual insights and practical directions for authors to wisely choose which co-author should serve as the nominated reciprocal reviewer.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanism
Machine learning and artificial intelligence conferences such as NeurIPS and ICML now regularly receive tens of thousands of submissions, posing significant challenges to maintaining the quality and consistency of the pe…
Learning representations of learning representations
The ICLR conference is unique among the top machine learning conferences in that all submitted papers are openly available. Here we present the ICLR dataset consisting of abstracts of all 24 thousand ICLR submissions fro…
SentenceAn Investigation into the Role of Author Demographics in ICLR Participation and Review
As machine learning conferences grow rapidly, many are concerned that individuals will be left behind on the basis of traits such as gender and geography. We leverage historic ICLR submissions from 2017 to 2021 to inves…
Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucia…
De-anonymization of authors through arXiv submissions during double-blind review
In this paper, we investigate the effects of releasing arXiv preprints of papers that are undergoing a double-blind review process. In particular, we ask the following research question: What is the relation between de-a…