A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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 where reviewers enter the system sequentially, each reviewer needs to be shown the list of submitted papers, and the reviewer then "bids" to review some papers. The order of the papers shown has a significant impact on the bids due to primacy effects. In deciding on the ordering of papers to show, there are two competing goals: (i) obtaining sufficiently many bids for each paper, and (ii) satisfying reviewers by showing them relevant items. In this paper, we begin by developing a framework to study this problem in a principled manner. We present an algorithm called SUPER*, inspired by the A* algorithm, for this goal. Theoretically, we show a local optimality guarantee of our algorithm and prove that popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. Moreover, under a community model for the similarities, we prove that SUPER* is near-optimal whereas the popular baselines are considerably suboptimal. In experiments on real data from ICLR 2018 and synthetic data, we find that SUPER* considerably outperforms baselines deployed in existing systems, consistently reducing the number of papers with fewer than requisite bids by 50-75% or more, and is also robust to various real world complexities.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2024What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?cited by 24
- 2023A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problemcited by 11
- 2022A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Reviewcited by 9
- 2021Near-Optimal Reviewer Splitting in Two-Phase Paper Reviewing and Conference Experiment Designcited by 6
- 2022Strategyproofing Peer Assessment via Partitioning: The Price in Terms of Evaluators' Expertisecited by 6
- 2023Assisting Human Decisions in Document Matchingcited by 3
- 2021Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Reviewcited by 2
- 2026RATE: Reviewer Profiling and Annotation-free Training for Expertise Ranking in Peer Review Systemscited by 1
- 2026CABAL: Multi-Agent Simulacra for Tracing the Effects of Collusive Bidding in Peer Reviewcited by 1
- 2025Which Coauthor Should I Nominate in My 99 ICLR Submissions? A Mathematical Analysis of the ICLR 2026 Reciprocal Reviewer Nomination Policycited by 0
- 2026CABAL: Multi-Agent Simulacra for Tracing the Effects of Collusive Bidding in Peer Review4 Sep 2026
- 2026RATE: Reviewer Profiling and Annotation-free Training for Expertise Ranking in Peer Review Systems27 Jan 2026
- 2025Which Coauthor Should I Nominate in My 99 ICLR Submissions? A Mathematical Analysis of the ICLR 2026 Reciprocal Reviewer Nomination Policy17 Dec 2025
- 2024What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?10 May 2024
- 2023A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problem23 Mar 2023
- 2023Assisting Human Decisions in Document Matching16 Feb 2023
- 2022A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review24 Jun 2022
- 2022Strategyproofing Peer Assessment via Partitioning: The Price in Terms of Evaluators' Expertise25 Jan 2022
- 2021Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review27 Aug 2021
- 2021Near-Optimal Reviewer Splitting in Two-Phase Paper Reviewing and Conference Experiment Design13 Aug 2021