The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important tasks of conference organizers is the assignment of papers to reviewers. Reviewers ’ assessments of papers isacrucialstepindeterminingtheconference program, and in a certain sense to shape the direction of a field. However this is not a simple task: large conferences typically have to assign hundreds of papers to hundreds of reviewers, and time constraints make the task impossibleforonepersontoaccomplish. Furthermore other constraints, such as reviewer load have to be taken into account, preventing the process from being completely distributed. We built the first version of a system to suggest reviewer assignments for the NIPS 2010 conference, followed, in 2012, by a release that better integrated our system with Microsoft’s popular Conference Management Toolkit (CMT). Since then our system has been widely adopted by the leading conferences in both the machine learning and computer vision communities. This paper provides an overview of the system, a summary of learning models and methods of evaluation thatwehavebeenusing, aswellas some of the recent progress and open issues. 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.033 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".