Papers › Into the Unknown: Assigning Reviewers to Papers with Uncertain Affinities

Into the Unknown: Assigning Reviewers to Papers with Uncertain Affinities

25 Jan 2023arXiv:2301.10816links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Cyrus Cousins, Justin Payan, Yair Zick

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.

A successful peer review process requires that qualified and interested reviewers are assigned to each paper. Most automated reviewer assignment approaches estimate a real-valued affinity score for each paper-reviewer pair that acts as a proxy for the quality of the match, and then assign reviewers to maximize the sum of affinity scores. Most affinity score estimation methods are inherently noisy: reviewers can only bid on a small number of papers, and textual similarity models and subject-area matching are inherently noisy estimators. Current paper assignment systems are not designed to rigorously handle noise in the peer-review matching market. In this work, we assume paper-reviewer affinity scores are located in or near a high-probability region called an uncertainty set. We maximize the worst-case sum of scores for a reviewer assignment over the uncertainty set. We demonstrate how to robustly maximize the sum of scores across various classes of uncertainty sets, avoiding potentially serious mistakes in assignment. Our general approach can be used to integrate a large variety of paper-reviewer affinity models into reviewer assignment, opening the door to a much more robust peer review process.

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

10 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 10 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 10 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from justinpayan/rau. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

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