You Are the Best Reviewer of Your Own Papers: An Owner-Assisted Scoring Mechanism
Weijie J. Su
Abstract
I consider a setting where reviewers offer very noisy scores for several items for the selection of high-quality ones (e.g., peer review of large conference proceedings), whereas the owner of these items knows the true underlying scores but prefers not to provide this information. To address this withholding of information, in this paper, I introduce the Isotonic Mechanism, a simple and efficient approach to improving imprecise raw scores by leveraging certain information that the owner is incentivized to provide. This mechanism takes the ranking of the items from best to worst provided by the owner as input, in addition to the raw scores provided by the reviewers. It reports the adjusted scores for the items by solving a convex optimization problem. Under certain conditions, I show that the owner's optimal strategy is to honestly report the true ranking of the items to her best knowledge in order to maximize the expected utility. Moreover, I prove that the adjusted scores provided by this owner-assisted mechanism are significantly more accurate than the raw scores provided by the reviewers. This paper concludes with several extensions of the Isotonic Mechanism and some refinements of the mechanism for practical consideration. Interested readers are referred to [28] , which is a (significantly) extended version of the present paper. 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021), Sydney, Australia.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- From Replication to Redesign: Exploring Pairwise Comparisons for LLM-Based Peer ReviewYaohui Zhang, Haijing Zhang, Wenlong Ji, Tianyu Hua et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 15 citations
- Calibrating "Cheap Signals" in Peer Review without a PriorYuxuan Lu, Yuqing KongNeurIPS 2023 · 10 citations
- Strategic Candidacy in Generative AI ArenasChris Hays, Rachel Li, Bailey Flanigan, Manish RaghavanICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Eliciting Honest Information from Authors Using Sequential ReviewYichi Zhang, Grant Schoenebeck, Weijie SuAAAI 2024 · 1 citation
- On Truthful Item-Acquiring Mechanisms for Reward MaximizationLiang Shan, Shuo Zhang, Jie Zhang, Zihe WangWWW 2024
Builds on3
- Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer AssignmentsSteven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 90 citations
- A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large ConferencesIvan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh, Hal Daumé IIIAAAI 2021 · 37 citations
- Debiasing Evaluations That Are Biased by EvaluationsJingyan Wang, Ivan Stelmakh, Yuting Wei, Nihar B. ShahAAAI 2021 · 24 citations
Related papers
- Least Square Calibration for Peer ReviewsSijun Tan, Jibang Wu, Xiaohui Bei, Haifeng XuNeurIPS 2021 · 10 citations
- A Truthful Cardinal Mechanism for One-Sided MatchingRediet Abebe, Richard Cole, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Jason D. HartlineSODA 2020 · 12 citations
- High-Effort Crowds: Limited Liability via TournamentsYichi Zhang, Grant SchoenebeckWWW 2023 · 10 citations
- Stochastically Dominant Peer PredictionYichi Zhang, Shengwei Xu, Grant Schoenebeck, David M. PennockNeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
- Counterbalancing Learning and Strategic Incentives in Allocation MarketsJamie Kang, Faidra Monachou, Moran Koren, Itai AshlagiNeurIPS 2021 · 1 citation
