Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Framework for Optimizing Paper Matching

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1202.3706 v1 pith:YKN2UI7Z submitted 2012-02-14 cs.IR cs.AI

A Framework for Optimizing Paper Matching

classification cs.IR cs.AI
keywords matchingframeworklearningreviewersscoresassignmentconferencepaper-to-reviewer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

At the heart of many scientific conferences is the problem of matching submitted papers to suitable reviewers. Arriving at a good assignment is a major and important challenge for any conference organizer. In this paper we propose a framework to optimize paper-to-reviewer assignments. Our framework uses suitability scores to measure pairwise affinity between papers and reviewers. We show how learning can be used to infer suitability scores from a small set of provided scores, thereby reducing the burden on reviewers and organizers. We frame the assignment problem as an integer program and propose several variations for the paper-to-reviewer matching domain. We also explore how learning and matching interact. Experiments on two conference data sets examine the performance of several learning methods as well as the effectiveness of the matching formulations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Traditional statistical representations outperform generative AI in identifying expert peer reviewers

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    TF-IDF identifies labeled experts in the top 25 recommendations 79.5% of the time versus 51.5% for GPT-4o mini on an astronomy observatory dataset.