mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Tradeoffs in Preventing Manipulation in Paper Bidding for Reviewer Assignment

arXiv 2207.11315 ↗First posted 22 Jul 2022cs.AI cs.CR cs.GTcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many conferences rely on paper bidding as a key component of their reviewer assignment procedure. These bids are then taken into account when assigning reviewers to help ensure that each reviewer is assigned to suitable papers. However, despite the benefits of using bids, reliance on paper bidding can allow malicious reviewers to manipulate the paper assignment for unethical purposes (e.g., getting assigned to a friend's paper). Several different approaches to preventing this manipulation have been proposed and deployed. In this paper, we enumerate certain desirable properties that algorithms for addressing bid manipulation should satisfy. We then offer a high-level analysis of various approaches along with directions for future investigation.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2022.

Builds on

6 of 32 references.

References · 6

  1. 2020Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignmentscited by 38
  2. 2017Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Processcited by 33
  3. 2022Matching Papers and Reviewers at Large Conferencescited by 18
  4. 2021Making Paper Reviewing Robust to Bid Manipulation Attackscited by 12
  5. 2022A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Reviewcited by 9
  6. 2021Combating Collusion Rings is Hard but Possiblecited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 3.

4 papers.