Papers › Chain-of-Factors Paper-Reviewer Matching
Chain-of-Factors Paper-Reviewer Matching
Yu Zhang, Yanzhen Shen, SeongKu Kang, Xiusi Chen, Bowen Jin, Jiawei Han
With the rapid increase in paper submissions to academic conferences, the need for automated and accurate paper-reviewer matching is more critical than ever. Previous efforts in this area have considered various factors to assess the relevance of a reviewer's expertise to a paper, such as the semantic similarity, shared topics, and citation connections between the paper and the reviewer's previous works. However, most of these studies focus on only one factor, resulting in an incomplete evaluation of the paper-reviewer relevance. To address this issue, we propose a unified model for paper-reviewer matching that jointly considers semantic, topic, and citation factors. To be specific, during training, we instruction-tune a contextualized language model shared across all factors to capture their commonalities and characteristics; during inference, we chain the three factors to enable step-by-step, coarse-to-fine search for qualified reviewers given a submission. Experiments on four datasets (one of which is newly contributed by us) spanning various fields such as machine learning, computer vision, information retrieval, and data mining consistently demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed Chain-of-Factors model in comparison with state-of-the-art paper-reviewer matching methods and scientific pre-trained language models.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
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.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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