Papers › Diverse Reviewer Suggestion for Extending Conference Program Committees
Diverse Reviewer Suggestion for Extending Conference Program Committees
Christin Katharina Kreutz, Krisztian Balog, Ralf Schenkel
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Automated reviewer recommendation for scientific conferences currently relies on the assumption that the program committee has the necessary expertise to handle all submissions. However, topical discrepancies between received submissions and reviewer candidates might lead to unreliable reviews or overburdening of reviewers, and may result in the rejection of high-quality papers. In this work, we present DiveRS, an explainable flow-based reviewer assignment approach, which automatically generates reviewer assignments as well as suggestions for extending the current program committee with new reviewer candidates. Our algorithm focuses on the diversity of the set of reviewers assigned to papers, which has been mostly disregarded in prior work. Specifically, we consider diversity in terms of professional background, location and seniority. Using two real world conference datasets for evaluation, we show that DiveRS improves diversity compared to both real assignments and a state-of-the-art flow-based reviewer assignment approach. Further, based on human assessments by former PC chairs, we find that DiveRS can effectively trade off some of the topical suitability in order to construct more diverse reviewer assignments.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections