Posted on

Experiments with the ICML 2020 Peer-Review Process

This post is cross-listed on the CMU ML blog.

The International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) is a flagship machine learning conference that in 2020 received 4,990 submissions and managed a pool of 3,931 reviewers and area chairs. Given that the stakes in the review process are high — the careers of researchers are often significantly affected by the publications in top venues — we decided to scrutinize several components of the peer-review process in a series of experiments. Specifically, in conjunction with the ICML 2020 conference, we performed three experiments that target: resubmission policies, management of reviewer discussions, and reviewer recruiting. In this post, we summarize the results of these studies.

Resubmission Bias

Motivation. Several leading ML and AI conferences have recently started requiring authors to declare previous submission history of their papers. In part, such measures are taken to reduce the load on reviewers by discouraging resubmissions without substantial changes. However, this requirement poses a risk of bias in reviewers’ evaluations.

Research question. Do reviewers get biased when they know that the paper they are reviewing was previously rejected from a similar venue?

Procedure. We organized an auxiliary conference review process with 134 junior reviewers from 5 top US schools and 19 papers from various areas of ML. We assigned participants 1 paper each and asked them to review the paper as if it was submitted to ICML. Unbeknown to participants, we allocated them to a test or control condition uniformly at random:

Control. Participants review the papers as usual.

Test. Before reading the paper, participants are told that the paper they review is a resubmission.

Hypothesis. We expect that if the bias is present, reviewers in the test condition should be harsher than in the control. 

Key findings. Reviewers give almost one point lower score (95% Confidence Interval: [0.24, 1.30]) on a 10-point Likert item for the overall evaluation of a paper when they are told that a paper is a resubmission. In terms of narrower review criteria, reviewers tend to underrate “Paper Quality” the most.

Implications. Conference organizers need to evaluate a trade-off between envisaged benefits such as the hypothetical reduction in the number of submissions and the potential unfairness introduced to the process by the resubmission bias. One option to reduce the bias is to postpone the moment in which the resubmission signal is revealed until after the initial reviews are submitted. This finding must also be accounted for when deciding whether the reviews of rejected papers should be publicly available on systems like openreview.net and others. 

Details. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.14646

Herding Effects in Discussions

Motivation. Past research on human decision making shows that group discussion is susceptible to various biases related to social influence. For instance, it is documented that the decision of a group may be biased towards the opinion of the group member who proposes the solution first. We call this effect herding and note that, in peer review, herding (if present) may result in undesirable artifacts in decisions as different area chairs use different strategies to select the discussion initiator.

Research question. Conditioned on a set of reviewers who actively participate in a discussion of a paper, does the final decision of the paper depend on the order in which reviewers join the discussion?

Procedure. We performed a randomized controlled trial on herding in ICML 2020 discussions that involved about 1,500 papers and 2,000 reviewers. In peer review, the discussion takes place after the reviewers submit their initial reviews, so we know prior opinions of reviewers about the papers. With this information, we split a subset of ICML papers into two groups uniformly at random and applied different discussion-management strategies to them: 

Positive Group. First ask the most positive reviewer to start the discussion, then later ask the most negative reviewer to contribute to the discussion.

Negative Group. First ask the most negative reviewer to start the discussion, then later ask the most positive reviewer to contribute to the discussion.

Hypothesis. The only difference between the strategies is the order in which reviewers are supposed to join the discussion. Hence, if the herding is absent, the strategies will not impact submissions from the two groups disproportionately. However, if the herding is present, we expect that the difference in the order will introduce a difference in the acceptance rates across the two groups of papers.

Key findings. The analysis of outcomes of approximately 1,500 papers does not reveal a statistically significant difference in acceptance rates between the two groups of papers. Hence, we find no evidence of herding in the discussion phase of peer review.

Implications. Regarding the concern of herding which is found to occur in other applications involving people, discussion in peer review does not seem to be susceptible to this effect and hence no specific measures to counteract herding in peer-review discussions are needed.

Details. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.15083

Novice Reviewer Recruiting

Motivation.  A surge in the number of submissions received by leading ML and  AI conferences has challenged the sustainability of the review process by increasing the burden on the pool of qualified reviewers. Leading conferences have been addressing the issue by relaxing the seniority bar for reviewers and inviting very junior researchers with limited or no publication history, but there is mixed evidence regarding the impact of such interventions on the quality of reviews. 

Research question. Can very junior reviewers be recruited and guided such that they enlarge the reviewer pool of leading ML and AI conferences without compromising the quality of the process?

Procedure. We implemented a twofold approach towards managing novice reviewers:

Selection. We evaluated reviews written in the aforementioned auxiliary conference review process involving 134 junior reviewers, and invited 52 of these reviewers who produced the strongest reviews to join the reviewer pool of ICML 2020. Most of these 52 “experimental” reviewers come from the population not considered by the conventional way of reviewer recruiting used in ICML 2020.

Mentoring. In the actual conference, we provided these experimental reviewers with a senior researcher as a point of contact who offered additional mentoring.

Hypothesis. If our approach allows to bring strong reviewers to the pool, we expect experimental reviewers to perform at least as good as reviewers from the main pool on various metrics, including the quality of reviews as rated by area chairs.

Key findings. A combination of the selection and mentoring mechanisms results in reviews of at least comparable and on some metrics even higher-rated quality as compared to the conventional pool of reviews: 30% of reviews written by the experimental reviewers exceeded the expectations of area chairs (compared to only 14% for the main pool).

Implications. The experiment received positive feedback from participants who appreciated the opportunity to become a reviewer in ICML 2020 and from authors of papers used in the auxiliary review process who received a set of useful reviews without submitting to a real conference. Hence, we believe that a promising direction is to replicate the experiment at a larger scale and evaluate the benefits of each component of our approach.

Details. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.15050

Conclusion

All in all, the experiments we conducted in ICML 2020 reveal some useful and actionable insights about the peer-review process. We hope that some of these ideas will help to design a better peer-review pipeline in future conferences.

We thank ICML area chairs, reviewers, and authors for their tremendous efforts. We would also like to thank the Microsoft Conference Management Toolkit (CMT) team for their continuous support and implementation of features necessary to run these experiments, the authors of papers contributed to the auxiliary review process for their responsiveness, and participants of the resubmission bias experiment for their enthusiasm. Finally, we thank Ed Kennedy and Devendra Chaplot for their help with designing and executing the experiments.

The post is based on the works by Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh, Hal Daumé III, and Charvi Rastogi.

Posted on

Netflix nearly done

A $1M qualifying result was achieved on the public Netflix test set by a 3-way ensemble team. This is just in time for Yehuda‘s presentation at KDD, which I’m sure will be one of the best attended ever.

This isn’t quite over—there are a few days for another super-conglomerate team to come together and there is some small chance that the performance is nonrepresentative of the final test set, but I expect not.

Regardless of the final outcome, the biggest lesson for ML from the Netflix contest has been the formidable performance edge of ensemble methods.

Posted on

A NIPS paper

I’m skipping NIPS this year in favor of Ada, but I wanted to point out this paper by Andriy Mnih and Geoff Hinton. The basic claim of the paper is that by carefully but automatically constructing a binary tree over words, it’s possible to predict words well with huge computational resource savings over unstructured approaches.

I’m interested in this beyond the application to word prediction because it is relevant to the general normalization problem: If you want to predict the probability of one of a large number of events, often you must compute a predicted score for all the events and then normalize, a computationally inefficient operation. The problem comes up in many places using probabilistic models, but I’ve run into it with high-dimensional regression.

There are a couple workarounds for this computational bug:

  1. Approximate. There are many ways. Often the approximations are uncontrolled (i.e. can be arbitrarily bad), and hence finicky in application.
  2. Avoid. You don’t really want a probability, you want the most probable choice which can be found more directly. Energy based model update rules are an example of that approach and there are many other direct methods from supervised learning. This is great when it applies, but sometimes a probability is actually needed.

This paper points out that a third approach can be viable empirically: use a self-normalizing structure. It seems highly likely that this is true in other applications as well.

Posted on

NIPS 2008 workshop on ‘Learning over Empirical Hypothesis Spaces’

This workshop asks for insights how far we may/can push the theoretical boundary of using data in the design of learning machines. Can we express our classification rule in terms of the sample, or do we have to stick to a core assumption of classical statistical learning theory, namely that the hypothesis space is to be defined independent from the sample? This workshop is particularly interested in – but not restricted to – the ‘luckiness framework’ and the recently introduced notion of ‘compatibility functions’ in a semi-supervised learning context (more information can be found at http://www.kuleuven.be/wehys).

Posted on

Automated Labeling

One of the common trends in machine learning has been an emphasis on the use of unlabeled data. The argument goes something like “there aren’t many labeled web pages out there, but there are a huge number of web pages, so we must find a way to take advantage of them.” There are several standard approaches for doing this:

  1. Unsupervised Learning. You use only unlabeled data. In a typical application, you cluster the data and hope that the clusters somehow correspond to what you care about.
  2. Semisupervised Learning. You use both unlabeled and labeled data to build a predictor. The unlabeled data influences the learned predictor in some way.
  3. Active Learning. You have unlabeled data and access to a labeling oracle. You interactively choose which examples to label so as to optimize prediction accuracy.

It seems there is a fourth approach worth serious investigation—automated labeling. The approach goes as follows:

  1. Identify some subset of observed values to predict from the others.
  2. Build a predictor.
  3. Use the output of the predictor to define a new prediction problem.
  4. Repeat…

Examples of this sort seem to come up in robotics very naturally. An extreme version of this is:

  1. Predict nearby things given touch sensor output.
  2. Predict medium distance things given the nearby predictor.
  3. Predict far distance things given the medium distance predictor.

Some of the participants in the LAGR project are using this approach.

A less extreme version was the DARPA grand challenge winner where the output of a laser range finder was used to form a road-or-not predictor for a camera image.

These automated labeling techniques transform an unsupervised learning problem into a supervised learning problem, which has huge implications: we understand supervised learning much better and can bring to bear a host of techniques.

The set of work on automated labeling is sketchy—right now it is mostly just an observed-as-useful technique for which we have no general understanding. Some relevant bits of algorithm and theory are:

  1. Reinforcement learning to classification reductions which convert rewards into labels.
  2. Cotraining which considers a setting containing multiple data sources. When predictors using different data sources agree on unlabeled data, an inferred label is automatically created.

It’s easy to imagine that undiscovered algorithms and theory exist to guide and use this empirically useful technique.