Multivariate Monotone Bayesian Updating

Torres, Ricard

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2167744

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, we provide a proof for the categorical model. It can be easily modified for the continuous model, and the result also is shown as Theorem 1 in [37]. We show the result by induction on the size of the quality set Q.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A System-Level Analysis of Conference Peer Review

Zhang

Schoenebeck

et al. 2022

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We undertake a system-level analysis of the conference peer review process. The process involves three constituencies with different objectives: authors want their papers accepted at prestigious venues (and quickly), conferences want to present a program with many high-quality and few low-quality papers, and reviewers want to avoid being overburdened by reviews. These objectives are far from aligned; the key obstacle is that the evaluation of the merits of a submission (both by the authors and the reviewers) is inherently noisy. Over the years, conferences have experimented with numerous policies and innovations to navigate the tradeoffs. These experiments include setting various bars for acceptance, varying the number of reviews per submission, requiring prior reviews to be included with resubmissions, and others. The purpose of the present work is to investigate, both analytically and using agent-based simulations, how well various policies work, and more importantly, why they do or do not work.We model the conference-author interactions as a Stackelberg game in which a prestigious conference commits to a (threshold) acceptance policy which will be applied to the (noisy) reviews of each submitted paper; the authors best-respond by submitting or not submitting to the conference, the alternative being a "sure accept" (such as arXiv or a lightly refereed venue).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…For continuous distributions, this lemma is proved in [37]. We give a self-contained proof for the categorical case, which is largely analogous, in Appendix A.…”

Section: Conference Acceptance Policy and Qualitymentioning

confidence: 96%