587 citations · 2.1k across the 58 of their papers we have counts for
7 papers · 1 filter
Testing for Reviewer Anchoring in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ryan Liu, Steven Jecmen, Vincent Conitzer +2
Peer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provide initial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update their reviews based on the authors'…
ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewing
Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah
Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct…
Counterfactual Evaluation of Peer-Review Assignment Policies
Martin Saveski, Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah +1
Peer review assignment algorithms aim to match research papers to suitable expert reviewers, working to maximize the quality of the resulting reviews. A key challenge in designing…
Time is Money: Strategic Timing Games in Proof-of-Stake Protocols
Caspar Schwarz-Schilling, Fahad Saleh, Thomas Thiery +3
We propose a model suggesting that honest-but-rational consensus participants may play timing games, and strategically delay their block proposal to optimize MEV capture, while sti…
A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problem
Ivan Stelmakh, John Wieting, Sarina Xi +2
Many peer-review venues are using algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score" -- a numerical estima…
Assisting Human Decisions in Document Matching
Joon Sik Kim, Valerie Chen, Danish Pruthi +2
Many practical applications, ranging from paper-reviewer assignment in peer review to job-applicant matching for hiring, require human decision makers to identify relevant matches…