mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Least Square Calibration for Peer Review

arXiv 2110.12607 ↗First posted 25 Oct 2021cs.LG cs.SIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Peer review systems such as conference paper review often suffer from the issue of miscalibration. Previous works on peer review calibration usually only use the ordinal information or assume simplistic reviewer scoring functions such as linear functions. In practice, applications like academic conferences often rely on manual methods, such as open discussions, to mitigate miscalibration. It remains an important question to develop algorithms that can handle different types of miscalibrations based on available prior knowledge. In this paper, we propose a flexible framework, namely least square calibration (LSC), for selecting top candidates from peer ratings. Our framework provably performs perfect calibration from noiseless linear scoring functions under mild assumptions, yet also provides competitive calibration results when the scoring function is from broader classes beyond linear functions and with arbitrary noise. On our synthetic dataset, we empirically demonstrate that our algorithm consistently outperforms the baseline which select top papers based on the highest average ratings.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Oct 2021.

Builds on

7 of 34 references.

References · 7

  1. 2013A Theoretical Analysis of NDCG Type Ranking Measurescited by 119
  2. 2018Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratingscited by 28
  3. 2020Catch Me if I Can: Detecting Strategic Behaviour in Peer Assessmentcited by 14
  4. 2020Debiasing Evaluations That are Biased by Evaluationscited by 9
  5. 2015Calibration with confidence: A principled method for panel assessmentcited by 6
  6. 2019Report-Sensitive Spot-Checking in Peer-Grading Systemscited by 5
  7. 2015Peer Grading in a Course on Algorithms and Data Structures: Machine Learning Algorithms do not Improve over Simple Baselinescited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.