Catch Me if I Can: Detecting Strategic Behaviour in Peer Assessment
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh
Abstract
We consider the issue of strategic behaviour in various peer-assessment tasks, including peer grading of exams or homeworks and peer review in hiring or promotions. When a peer-assessment task is competitive (e.g., when students are graded on a curve), agents may be incentivized to misreport evaluations in order to improve their own final standing. Our focus is on designing methods for detection of such manipulations. Specifically, we consider a setting in which agents evaluate a subset of their peers and output rankings that are later aggregated to form a final ordering. In this paper, we investigate a statistical framework for this problem and design a principled test for detecting strategic behaviour. We prove that our test has strong false alarm guarantees and evaluate its detection ability in practical settings. For this, we design and execute an experiment that elicits strategic behaviour from subjects and release a dataset of patterns of strategic behaviour that may be of independent interest. We then use the collected data to conduct a series of real and semi-synthetic evaluations that demonstrate a strong detection power of our test.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext eeefb324-554d-4c3f-b7b0-3371e86b5150Cited by top-tier papers5
- Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer AssignmentsSteven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 90 citations
- Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer ReviewEmaad A. Manzoor, Nihar B. ShahAAAI 2021 · 42 citations
- Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer ReviewIvan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh, Hal Daumé IIICSCW 2021 · 17 citations
- Least Square Calibration for Peer ReviewsSijun Tan, Jibang Wu, Xiaohui Bei, Haifeng XuNeurIPS 2021 · 10 citations
- The Publication Choice ProblemHaichuan Wang, Yifan Wu, Haifeng XuAAAI 2026
Builds on2
- Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer AssignmentsSteven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 90 citations
- HirePeer: Impartial Peer-Assessed Hiring at Scale in Expert Crowdsourcing MarketsYasmine Kotturi, Anson Kahng, Ariel D. Procaccia, Chinmay KulkarniAAAI 2020 · 15 citations
Related papers
- A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer ReviewSteven Jecmen, Minji Yoon, Vincent Conitzer, Nihar B. Shah et al.WWW 2023 · 22 citations
- Better Peer Grading through Bayesian InferenceHedayat Zarkoob, Greg d'Eon, Lena Podina, Kevin Leyton-BrownAAAI 2023 · 9 citations
- High-Effort Crowds: Limited Liability via TournamentsYichi Zhang, Grant SchoenebeckWWW 2023 · 10 citations
- A Cramér-von Mises Approach to Incentivizing Truthful Data SharingAlex Clinton, Thomas Zeng, Yiding Chen, Xiaojin Zhu et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
- Statistical Collusion by Collectives on Learning PlatformsEtienne Gauthier, Francis Bach, Michael I. JordanICML 2025
