Search for: All records

We consider the problem of determining a binary ground truth using advice from a group of independent reviewers (experts) who express their guess about a ground truth correctly with some independent probability (competence) $$p_i$$. In this setting, when all reviewers are competent with $$p \geq 0.5$$, the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that adding more reviewers increases the overall accuracy, and if all $$p_i$$'s are known, then there exists an optimal weighting of the reviewers. However, in practical settings, reviewers may be noisy or incompetent, i.e., $$p_i \leq 0.5$$, and the number of experts may be small, so the asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem is not practically relevant. In such cases we explore appointing one or more chairs (judges) who determine the weight of each reviewer for aggregation, creating multiple levels. However, these chairs may be unable to correctly identify the competence of the reviewers they oversee, and therefore unable to compute the optimal weighting. We give conditions on when a set of chairs is able to weight the reviewers optimally, and depending on the competence distribution of the agents, give results about when it is better to have more chairs or more reviewers. Through simulations we show that in some cases it is better to have more chairs, but in many cases it is better to have more reviewers. 

The study of peer selection mechanisms presents a unique opportunity to understand and improve the practice of a group selecting its best members, despite each member of that group wanting to be selected. A prime example of such a setting is academic peer review, for which peer selection offers a variety of improvement directions. We present an annotated reading list covering the foundations of peer selection as well as recent and emerging work within the field. 

We investigate the problem of determining a binary ground truth using advice from a group of independent reviewers (experts) who express their guess about a ground truth correctly with some independent probability (competence) p_i. In this setting, when all reviewers are competent with p >= 0.5, the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that adding more reviewers increases the overall accuracy, and if all p_i's are known, then there exists an optimal weighting of the reviewers. However, in practical settings, reviewers may be noisy or incompetent, i.e., p_i < 0.5, and the number of experts may be small, so the asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem is not practically relevant. In such cases we explore appointing one or more chairs (judges) who determine the weight of each reviewer for aggregation, creating multiple levels. However, these chairs may be unable to correctly identify the competence of the reviewers they oversee, and therefore unable to compute the optimal weighting. We give conditions when a set of chairs is able to weight the reviewers optimally, and depending on the competence distribution of the agents, give results about when it is better to have more chairs or more reviewers. Through numerical simulations we show that in some cases it is better to have more chairs, but in many cases it is better to have more reviewers. 

The explosion of conference paper submissions in AI and related fields has underscored the need to improve many aspects of the peer review process, especially the matching of papers and reviewers. Recent work argues that the key to improve this matching is to modify aspects of the bidding phase itself, to ensure that the set of bids over papers is balanced, and in particular to avoid orphan papers, i.e., those papers that receive no bids. In an attempt to understand and mitigate this problem, we have developed a flexible bidding platform to test adaptations to the bidding process. Using this platform, we performed a field experiment during the bidding phase of a medium-size international workshop that compared two bidding methods. We further examined via controlled experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk various factors that affect bidding, in particular the order in which papers are presented [11, 17]; and information on paper demand [33]. Our results suggest that several simple adaptations, that can be added to any existing platform, may significantly reduce the skew in bids, thereby improving the allocation for both reviewers and conference organizers.