Isotonic Mechanism for Exponential Family Estimation in Machine Learning Peer Review
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In 2023, the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) required authors with multiple submissions to rank their submissions based on perceived quality. In this paper, we aim to employ these author-specified rankings to enhance peer review in machine learning and artificial intelligence conferences by extending the Isotonic Mechanism to exponential family distributions. This mechanism generates adjusted scores that closely align with the original scores while adhering to author-specified rankings. Despite its applicability to a broad spectrum of exponential family distributions, implementing this mechanism does not require knowledge of the specific distribution form. We demonstrate that an author is incentivized to provide accurate rankings when her utility takes the form of a convex additive function of the adjusted review scores. For a certain subclass of exponential family distributions, we prove that the author reports truthfully only if the question involves only pairwise comparisons between her submissions, thus indicating the optimality of ranking in truthful information elicitation. Moreover, we show that the adjusted scores improve dramatically the estimation accuracy compared to the original scores and achieve nearly minimax optimality when the ground-truth scores have bounded total variation. We conclude with a numerical analysis of the ICML 2023 ranking data, showing substantial estimation gains in approximating a proxy ground-truth quality of the papers using the Isotonic Mechanism.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2023.
Builds on
7 of 25 references.
References · 7
- 2020Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignmentscited by 38
- 2019Paper Matching with Local Fairness Constraintscited by 30
- 2018Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratingscited by 28
- 2021You Are the Best Reviewer of Your Own Papers: An Owner-Assisted Scoring Mechanismcited by 18
- 2022Matching Papers and Reviewers at Large Conferencescited by 18
- 2020A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferencescited by 16
- 2015Calibration with confidence: A principled method for panel assessmentcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2025From Replication to Redesign: Exploring Pairwise Comparisons for LLM-Based Peer Reviewcited by 11
- 2024The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Reviewcited by 7
- 2025How to Find Fantastic AI Papers: Self-Rankings as a Powerful Predictor of Scientific Impact Beyond Peer Reviewcited by 3
- 2023Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Reviewcited by 0
- 2026Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanismcited by 0
- 2026CAIRO: Decoupling Order from Scale in Regressioncited by 0
- 2026CAIRO: Decoupling Order from Scale in Regression16 Feb 2026
- 2026Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanism21 Jan 2026
- 2025How to Find Fantastic AI Papers: Self-Rankings as a Powerful Predictor of Scientific Impact Beyond Peer Review2 Oct 2025
- 2025From Replication to Redesign: Exploring Pairwise Comparisons for LLM-Based Peer Review12 Jun 2025
- 2024The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review24 Aug 2024
- 2023Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review24 Nov 2023