PreprintCited by 4Game Theory and Voting SystemsOptimization and Search ProblemsRecommender Systems and Techniques

I Will Have Order! Optimizing Orders for Fair Reviewer Assignment

Open access
Payan, Justin, Zick, Yair·2021·arXiv

Abstract

We present fast, fair, flexible, and welfare efficient algorithms for assigning reviewers to submitted conference papers. Our approaches extend picking sequence mechanisms, standard tools from the fair allocation literature to ensure approximate envy-freeness (typically envy-freeness up to one item, or EF1). However, fairness often comes at the cost of decreased efficiency. To overcome this challenge, we carefully select approximately optimal picking sequence orders. Applying a relaxation of submodularity, $γ$-weak submodularity, we show our Greedy Reviewer Round Robin (GRRR) approach is EF1 and yields a ${(1+γ)}$-approximation to the maximum welfare attainable by a round-robin picking sequence mechanism under any order. We present a weighted picking sequence mechanism called FairSequence that targets the Weighted EF1 criterion to offer fairness in a more general setting. Using data from three conferences, we show that FairSequence runs an order of magnitude faster and provides approximate envy-freeness guarantees that are violated by existing approaches. Its simple design also makes it very flexible to new assignment constraints. FairSequence is available in the OpenReview conference management platform, giving conference organizers access to faster reviewer assignment with high welfare and envy-freeness guarantees.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2108.02126

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The reviewer-paper matching problem can be addressed with discrete optimization techniques, given a set of constraints and optionally an objective function to score the matches.

    “This problem can be addressed with discrete optimization techniques (Charlin and Zemel, 2013; Kobren et al., 2019; Payan and Zick, 2021; Stelmakh et al., 2021a; Rogers et al., 2023b; Leyton-Brown et al., 2024), given a set of constraints and optionally an objective function to score the matches.”

    From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Payan and Zick, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Ahmed, F., Dickerson, J. P., & Fuge, M. (2017). Diverse weighted bipartite b-matching. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pp. 35-41.
  2. Aziz, H., Huang, X., Mattei, N., & Segal-Halevi, E. (2019). The constrained round robin algorithm for fair and efficient allocation. CoRR , abs/1908.00161 . · arXiv
  3. Aziz, H., Kalinowski, T., Walsh, T., & Xia, L. (2016). Welfare of sequential allocation mechanisms for indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) , pp. 787-794.
  4. Aziz, H., Micha, E., & Shah, N. (2023). Group fairness in peer review. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) , pp. 2889-2891.
  5. Aziz, H., Walsh, T., & Xia, L. (2015). Possible and necessary allocations via sequential mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pp. 468-474.
  6. Babaioff, M., Ezra, T., & Feige, U. (2021a). Fair and truthful mechanisms for dichotomous valuations. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , pp. 5119-5126.
  7. Babaioff, M., Ezra, T., & Feige, U. (2021b). Fair-share allocations for agents with arbitrary entitlements. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) , p. 127.
  8. Barman, S., Ghalme, G., Jain, S., Kulkarni, P., & Narang, S. (2019). Fair division of indivisible goods among strategic agents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) , pp. 18111813.
  9. Barman, S., & Verma, P. (2021). Existence and computation of maximin fair allocations under matroid-rank valuations. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) , pp. 169-177.
  10. Benabbou, N., Chakraborty, M., Igarashi, A., & Zick, Y. (2020). Finding fair and efficient allocations when valuations don't add up. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT) , pp. 32-46.
  11. Biswas, A., & Barman, S. (2018). Fair division under cardinality constraints.. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pp. 9197.
  12. Bouveret, S., Chevaleyre, Y., & Maudet, N. (2016). Fair allocation of indivisible goods. In Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., & Procaccia, A. D. (Eds.), Handbook of computational social choice , pp. 284-309. Cambridge University Press.
  13. Bouveret, S., & Lang, J. (2011). A general elicitation-free protocol for allocating indivisible goods. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pp. 73-78.
  14. Buchbinder, N., Feldman, M., Naor, J., & Schwartz, R. (2012). A tight linear time (1/2)approximation for unconstrained submodular maximization. In Proceedings of the 53rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pp. 649-658.
  15. Budish, E. (2011). The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy , 119 , 1061-1103.
  16. Caragiannis, I., Kurokawa, D., Moulin, H., Procaccia, A. D., Shah, N., & Wang, J. (2019). The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) , 7 (3), 1-32.
  17. Caragiannis, I., & Rathi, N. (2023). Optimizing over serial dictatorships. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT) , pp. 329346.
  18. Chakraborty, M., Igarashi, A., Suksompong, W., & Zick, Y. (2021a). Weighted envy-freeness in indivisible item allocation. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. , 9 (3), 1-39.
  19. Chakraborty, M., Segal-Halevi, E., & Suksompong, W. (2022). Weighted fairness notions for indivisible items revisited. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , pp. 4949-4956.
  20. Charlin, L., & Zemel, R. (2013). The Toronto paper matching system: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system. In Proceedings of the 2013 ICML Workshop on Peer Reviewing and Publishing Models .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Payan, J., & Zick, Y.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285637627
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2327057)
  • Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Optimization and Search Problems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
reviewer assignment, fair division, welfare efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review