Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
In conference peer review, reviewers are often asked to provide "bids" on each submitted paper that express their interest in reviewing that paper.
Expertise modeling for matching papers with reviewers
David Mimno and Andrew McCallum · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
The AI conference paper assignment problem
Judy Goldsmith and Robert H. Sloan · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
An algorithm to determine peer-reviewers
Marko A. Rodriguez and Johan Bollen · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
On the optimal assignment of conference papers to reviewers
Camillo J. Taylor · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
Expertise matching via constraint-based optimization
Wenbin Tang, Jie Tang, and Chenhao Tan · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
Novel tools to streamline the conference review process: Experiences from SIGKDD’09
Peter A. Flach, Sebastian Spiegler, Bruno Golénia, Simon Price, John Guiver, Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and Mohammed J. Zaki · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
I Hate Your Paper. Many Say the Peer Review System is Broken. Here’s How Some Journals Are Trying to Fix It
Jef Akst · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
A framework for optimizing paper matching
Laurent Charlin, Richard Zemel, and Craig Boutilier · 2011
Earlier work this paper cites.
Increasing cheat robustness of crowdsourcing tasks
Carsten Eickhoff and Arjen P. de Vries · 2012
Earlier work this paper cites.
The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system
Laurent Charlin and Richard S. Zemel · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
On good and fair paper-reviewer assignment
Cheng Long, Raymond Wong, Yu Peng, and Liangliang Ye · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects
Leman Akoglu, Rishi Chandy, and Christos Faloutsos · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
PrefLib: A library of preference data http://preflib.org
Nicholas Mattei and Toby Walsh · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
A robust model for paper reviewer assignment
Xiang Liu, Torsten Suel, and Nasir Memon · 2014
Cited alongside, same era.
Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining ’rational cheating’ in peer review
Edward F. Barroga · 2014
Cited alongside, same era.
Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: From junk support to elitism
Mario Paolucci and Francisco Grimaldo · 2014
Cited alongside, same era.
Understanding malicious behavior in crowdsourcing platforms: The case of online surveys
Ujwal Gadiraju, Ricardo Kawase, Stefan Dietze, and Gianluca Demartini · 2015
Paper matching with local fairness constraints
Ari Kobren, Barna Saha, and Andrew McCallum · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
T. N. Vijaykumar · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Mitigating manipulation in peer review via randomized reviewer assignments
Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah, Vincent Conitzer, and Fei Fang · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
A SUPER* algorithm to optimize paper bidding in peer review
Tanner Fiez, Nihar Shah, and Lillian Ratliff · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Collusion rings threaten the integrity of computer science research
Michael L Littman · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Making paper reviewing robust to bid manipulation attacks
Ruihan Wu, Chuan Guo, Felix Wu, Rahul Kidambi, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Weinberger · 2021
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Cited alongside, same era.
Expert suggestion for conference program committees
Hong Diep Tran, Guillaume Cabanac, and Gilles Hubert · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Zoobp: Belief propagation for heterogeneous networks
Dhivya Eswaran, Stephan Günnemann, Christos Faloutsos, Disha Makhija, and M. Kumar · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Rev2: Fraudulent user prediction in rating platforms
Srijan Kumar, Bryan Hooi, Disha Makhija, Mohit Kumar, Christos Faloutsos, and V. S. Subrahmanian · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
On strategyproof conference peer review
Yichong Xu, H. Zhao, Xiaofei Shi, and Nihar B. Shah · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Design and analysis of the NIPS 2016 review process
Nihar B. Shah, Behzad Tabibian, Krikamol Muandet, Isabelle Guyon, and Ulrike Von Luxburg · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Later among the works it cites.
Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review
Nihar B. Shah · 2022
Closest in time.
Matching papers and reviewers at large conferences
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Mausam, Yatin Nandwani, Hedayat Zarkoob, Chris Cameron, Neil Newman, and Dinesh Raghu · 2022
Closest in time.
Tradeoffs in preventing manipulation in paper bidding for reviewer assignment
Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah, Fei Fang, and Vincent Conitzer · 2022
Closest in time.
Near-optimal reviewer splitting in two-phase paper reviewing and conference experiment design
Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Fei Fang, Vincent Conitzer, and Nihar B. Shah · 2022
Closest in time.