Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Large Scale Randomized Controlled Trial on Herding in Peer-Review Discussions
72
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Ivan Stelmakh
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Peer review is the backbone of academia and humans constitute a cornerstone of this process, being responsible for reviewing papers and making the final acceptance/rejection decisions. Given that human decision making is known to be susceptible to various cognitive biases, it is important to understand which (if any) biases are present in the peer-review process and design the pipeline such that the impact of these biases is minimized. In this work, we focus on the dynamics of between-reviewers discussions and investigate the presence of herding behaviour therein. In that, we aim to understand whether reviewers and more senior decision makers get disproportionately influenced by the first argument presented in the discussion when (in case of reviewers) they form an independent opinion about the paper before discussing it with others. Specifically, in conjunction with the review process of ICML 2020 -- a large, top tier machine learning conference -- we design and execute a randomized controlled trial with the goal of testing for the conditional causal effect of the discussion initiators opinion on the outcome of a paper.
rate research
Read More
We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the authors; (ii) torpedo reviewing, where reviewers deliberately attempt to get assigned to certain papers that they dislike in order to reject them; (iii) reviewer de-anonymization on release of the similarities and the reviewer-assignment code. On the conceptual front, we identify connections between these three problems and present a framework that brings all these challenges under a common umbrella. We then present a (randomized) algorithm for reviewer assignment that can optimally solve the reviewer-assignment problem under any given constraints on the probability of assignment for any reviewer-paper pair. We further consider the problem of restricting the joint probability that certain suspect pairs of reviewers are assigned to certain papers, and show that this problem is NP-hard for arbitrary constraints on these joint probabilities but efficiently solvable for a practical special case. Finally, we experimentally evaluate our algorithms on datasets from past conferences, where we observe that they can limit the chance that any malicious reviewer gets assigned to their desired paper to 50% while producing assignments with over 90% of the total optimal similarity. Our algorithms still achieve this similarity while also preventing reviewers with close associations from being assigned to the same paper.
In visualization education, both science and humanities, the literature is often divided into two parts: the design aspect and the analysis of the visualization. However, we find limited discussion on how to motivate and engage visualization students in the classroom. In the field of Writing Studies, researchers develop tools and frameworks for student peer review of writing. Based on the literature review from the field of Writing Studies, this paper proposes a new framework to implement visualization peer review in the classroom to engage todays students. This framework can be customized for incremental and double-blind review to inspire students and reinforce critical thinking about visualization.
Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent reviewers is growing at a much slower rate. To curb this trend and reduce the burden on reviewers, several conferences have started encouraging or even requiring authors to declare the previous submission history of their papers. Such initiatives have been met with skepticism among authors, who raise the concern about a potential bias in reviewers recommendations induced by this information. In this work, we investigate whether reviewers exhibit a bias caused by the knowledge that the submission under review was previously rejected at a similar venue, focusing on a population of novice reviewers who constitute a large fraction of the reviewer pool in leading machine learning and computer science conferences. We design and conduct a randomized controlled trial closely replicating the relevant components of the peer-review pipeline with $133$ reviewers (masters, junior PhD students, and recent graduates of top US universities) writing reviews for $19$ papers. The analysis reveals that reviewers indeed become negatively biased when they receive a signal about paper being a resubmission, giving almost 1 point lower overall score on a 10-point Likert item ($Delta = -0.78, 95% text{CI} = [-1.30, -0.24]$) than reviewers who do not receive such a signal. Looking at specific criteria scores (originality, quality, clarity and significance), we observe that novice reviewers tend to underrate quality the most.
Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) are time-varying adaptive interventions that use frequent opportunities for the intervention to be adapted such as weekly, daily, or even many times a day. This high intensity of adaptation is facilitated by the ability of digital technology to continuously collect information about an individuals current context and deliver treatments adapted to this information. The micro-randomized trial (MRT) has emerged for use in informing the construction of JITAIs. MRTs operate in, and take advantage of, the rapidly time-varying digital intervention environment. MRTs can be used to address research questions about whether and under what circumstances particular components of a JITAI are effective, with the ultimate objective of developing effective and efficient components. The purpose of this article is to clarify why, when, and how to use MRTs; to highlight elements that must be considered when designing and implementing an MRT; and to discuss the possibilities this emerging optimization trial design offers for future research in the behavioral sciences, education, and other fields. We briefly review key elements of JITAIs, and then describe three case studies of MRTs, each of which highlights research questions that can be addressed using the MRT and experimental design considerations that might arise. We also discuss a variety of considerations that go into planning and designing an MRT, using the case studies as examples.
Learning a dynamical system from input/output data is a fundamental task in the control design pipeline. In the partially observed setting there are two components to identification: parameter estimation to learn the Markov parameters, and system realization to obtain a state space model. In both sub-problems it is implicitly assumed that standard numerical algorithms such as the singular value decomposition (SVD) can be easily and reliably computed. When trying to fit a high-dimensional model to data, for example in the cyber-physical system setting, even computing an SVD is intractable. In this work we show that an approximate matrix factorization obtained using randomized methods can replace the standard SVD in the realization algorithm while maintaining the non-asymptotic (in data-set size) performance and robustness guarantees of classical methods. Numerical examples illustrate that for large system models, this is the only method capable of producing a model.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
