The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it