Ryan Liu

Tongshuang Wu, Haiyi Zhu, Maya Albayrak et al. · cmu

LLMs have shown promise in replicating human-like behavior in crowdsourcing tasks that were previously thought to be exclusive to human abilities. However, current efforts focus mainly on simple atomic tasks. We explore whether LLMs can replicate more complex crowdsourcing pipelines. We find that modern LLMs can simulate some of crowdworkers' abilities in these ``human computation algorithms,'' but the level of success is variable and influenced by requesters' understanding of LLM capabilities, the specific skills required for sub-tasks, and the optimal interaction modality for performing these sub-tasks. We reflect on human and LLMs' different sensitivities to instructions, stress the importance of enabling human-facing safeguards for LLMs, and discuss the potential of training humans and LLMs with complementary skill sets. Crucially, we show that replicating crowdsourcing pipelines offers a valuable platform to investigate 1) the relative LLM strengths on different tasks (by cross-comparing their performances on sub-tasks) and 2) LLMs' potential in complex tasks, where they can complete part of the tasks while leaving others to humans.

Marc Walden, Jason Liu, Shaashwath Sivakumar et al.

We investigate multi-agent deep reinforcement learning and propose two enhancements to the Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MADDPG) algorithm. First, we introduce a novel Action Inference mechanism that enables each agent to predict other agents' intended actions, thereby improving the accuracy and stability of its own policy. Second, we apply an importance sampling strategy, using geometric distribution, in the replay buffer to prioritize more recent and informative experiences, which helps mitigate the non-stationarity inherent in multi-agent environments. We evaluate both modifications on the discrete-action Predator-Prey task provided by the PettingZoo library, a flexible Python interface for general multi-agent reinforcement learning benchmarks. Our results indicate that Action Inference is effective in improving learning stability and inter-agent cooperation and that importance sampling using geometric distribution can lead to significant improvements in exploration efficiency over standard MADDPG. Code available at https://github.com/shaashwathsivakumar/MARL_Proj

Ryan Liu, Paolo Calafiura, Steven Farrell et al.

We introduce a novel variant of GNN for particle tracking called Hierarchical Graph Neural Network (HGNN). The architecture creates a set of higher-level representations which correspond to tracks and assigns spacepoints to these tracks, allowing disconnected spacepoints to be assigned to the same track, as well as multiple tracks to share the same spacepoint. We propose a novel learnable pooling algorithm called GMPool to generate these higher-level representations called "super-nodes", as well as a new loss function designed for tracking problems and HGNN specifically. On a standard tracking problem, we show that, compared with previous ML-based tracking algorithms, the HGNN has better tracking efficiency performance, better robustness against inefficient input graphs, and better convergence compared with traditional GNNs.

Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Ryan Liu, Abhijith Gandrakota, Jennifer Ngadiuba et al.

Model-agnostic anomaly detection is one of the promising approaches in the search for new beyond the standard model physics. In this paper, we present Set-VAE, a particle-based variational autoencoder (VAE) anomaly detection algorithm. We demonstrate a 2x signal efficiency gain compared with traditional subjettiness-based jet selection. Furthermore, with an eye to the future deployment to trigger systems, we propose the CLIP-VAE, which reduces the inference-time cost of anomaly detection by using the KL-divergence loss as the anomaly score, resulting in a 2x acceleration in latency and reducing the caching requirement.

Ryan Liu, Abhijith Gandrakota, Jennifer Ngadiuba et al.

The challenging environment of real-time data processing systems at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) strictly limits the computational complexity of algorithms that can be deployed. For deep learning models, this implies that only models with low computational complexity that have weak inductive bias are feasible. To address this issue, we utilize knowledge distillation to leverage both the performance of large models and the reduced computational complexity of small ones. In this paper, we present an implementation of knowledge distillation, demonstrating an overall boost in the student models' performance for the task of classifying jets at the LHC. Furthermore, by using a teacher model with a strong inductive bias of Lorentz symmetry, we show that we can induce the same inductive bias in the student model which leads to better robustness against arbitrary Lorentz boost.

Ryan Liu, Howard Yen, Raja Marjieh et al.

How do we communicate with others to achieve our goals? We use our prior experience or advice from others, or construct a candidate utterance by predicting how it will be received. However, our experiences are limited and biased, and reasoning about potential outcomes can be difficult and cognitively challenging. In this paper, we explore how we can leverage Large Language Model (LLM) simulations to help us communicate better. We propose the Explore-Generate-Simulate (EGS) framework, which takes as input any scenario where an individual is communicating to an audience with a goal they want to achieve. EGS (1) explores the solution space by producing a diverse set of advice relevant to the scenario, (2) generates communication candidates conditioned on subsets of the advice, and (3) simulates the reactions from various audiences to determine both the best candidate and advice to use. We evaluate the framework on eight scenarios spanning the ten fundamental processes of interpersonal communication. For each scenario, we collect a dataset of human evaluations across candidates and baselines, and showcase that our framework's chosen candidate is preferred over popular generation mechanisms including Chain-of-Thought. We also find that audience simulations achieve reasonably high agreement with human raters across 5 of the 8 scenarios. Finally, we demonstrate the generality of our framework by applying it to real-world scenarios described by users on web forums. Through evaluations and demonstrations, we show that EGS enhances the effectiveness and outcomes of goal-oriented communication across a variety of situations, thus opening up new possibilities for the application of large language models in revolutionizing communication and decision-making processes.

Yihan Cao, Shuyi Chen, Ryan Liu et al.

A persistent challenge to table question answering (TableQA) by generating executable programs has been adapting to varied table structures, typically requiring domain-specific logical forms. In response, this paper introduces a unified TableQA framework that: (1) provides a unified representation for structured tables as multi-index Pandas data frames, (2) uses Python as a powerful querying language, and (3) uses few-shot prompting to translate NL questions into Python programs, which are executable on Pandas data frames. Furthermore, to answer complex relational questions with extended program functionality and external knowledge, our framework allows customized APIs that Python programs can call. We experiment with four TableQA datasets that involve tables of different structures -- relational, multi-table, and hierarchical matrix shapes -- and achieve prominent improvements over past state-of-the-art systems. In ablation studies, we (1) show benefits from our multi-index representation and APIs over baselines that use only an LLM, and (2) demonstrate that our approach is modular and can incorporate additional APIs.

Ryan Liu, Dilip Arumugam, Cedegao E. Zhang et al.

While contemporary large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable in isolation, there are still many difficult problems that lie beyond the abilities of a single LLM. For such tasks, there is still uncertainty about how best to take many LLMs as parts and combine them into a greater whole. This position paper argues that potential blueprints for designing such modular language agents can be found in the existing literature on cognitive models and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. To make this point clear, we formalize the idea of an agent template that specifies roles for individual LLMs and how their functionalities should be composed. We then survey a variety of existing language agents in the literature and highlight their underlying templates derived directly from cognitive models or AI algorithms. By highlighting these designs, we aim to call attention to agent templates inspired by cognitive science and AI as a powerful tool for developing effective, interpretable language agents.

Jiayi Geng, Howard Chen, Ryan Liu et al.

Language model (LM) assistants are increasingly used in applications such as brainstorming and research. Improvements in memory and context size have allowed these models to become more autonomous, which has also resulted in more text accumulation in their context windows without explicit user intervention. This comes with a latent risk: the belief profiles of models -- their understanding of the world as manifested in their responses or actions -- may silently change as context accumulates. This can lead to subtly inconsistent user experiences, or shifts in behavior that deviate from the original alignment of the models. In this paper, we explore how accumulating context by engaging in interactions and processing text -- talking and reading -- can change the beliefs of language models, as manifested in their responses and behaviors. Our results reveal that models' belief profiles are highly malleable: GPT-5 exhibits a 54.7% shift in its stated beliefs after 10 rounds of discussion about moral dilemmas and queries about safety, while Grok 4 shows a 27.2% shift on political issues after reading texts from the opposing position. We also examine models' behavioral changes by designing tasks that require tool use, where each tool selection corresponds to an implicit belief. We find that these changes align with stated belief shifts, suggesting that belief shifts will be reflected in actual behavior in agentic systems. Our analysis exposes the hidden risk of belief shift as models undergo extended sessions of talking or reading, rendering their opinions and actions unreliable.

Ryan Liu, Eric Qu, Tobias Kreiman et al.

Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) sometimes fail to reproduce the physical smoothness of the quantum potential energy surface (PES), leading to erroneous behavior in downstream simulations that standard energy and force regression evaluations can miss. Existing evaluations, such as microcanonical molecular dynamics (MD), are computationally expensive and primarily probe near-equilibrium states. To improve evaluation metrics for MLIPs, we introduce the Bond Smoothness Characterization Test (BSCT). This efficient benchmark probes the PES via controlled bond deformations and detects non-smoothness, including discontinuities, artificial minima, and spurious forces, both near and far from equilibrium. We show that BSCT correlates strongly with MD stability while requiring a fraction of the cost of MD. To demonstrate how BSCT can guide iterative model design, we utilize an unconstrained Transformer backbone as a testbed, illustrating how refinements such as a new differentiable $k$-nearest neighbors algorithm and temperature-controlled attention reduce artifacts identified by our metric. By optimizing model design systematically based on BSCT, the resulting MLIP simultaneously achieves a low conventional E/F regression error, stable MD simulations, and robust atomistic property predictions. Our results establish BSCT as both a validation metric and as an "in-the-loop" model design proxy that alerts MLIP developers to physical challenges that cannot be efficiently evaluated by current MLIP benchmarks.

Addison J. Wu, Ryan Liu, Xuechunzi Bai et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are adopted into frameworks that grant them the capacity to make real decisions, it is increasingly important to ensure that they are unbiased. In this paper, we argue that the predominant approach of simply removing existing biases from models is not enough. Using a paradigm from the psychology literature, we demonstrate that LLMs can spontaneously develop novel social biases about artificial demographic groups even when no inherent differences exist. These biases result in highly stratified task allocations, which are less fair than assignments by human participants and are exacerbated by newer and larger models. In social science, emergent biases like these have been shown to result from exploration-exploitation trade-offs, where the decision-maker explores too little, allowing early observations to strongly influence impressions about entire demographic groups. To alleviate this effect, we examine a series of interventions targeting model inputs, problem structure, and explicit steering. We find that explicitly incentivizing exploration most robustly reduces stratification, highlighting the need for better multifaceted objectives to mitigate bias. These results reveal that LLMs are not merely passive mirrors of human social biases, but can actively create new ones from experience, raising urgent questions about how these systems will shape societies over time.

Ryan Liu, Jiayi Geng, Addison J. Wu et al.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become a widely used strategy for improving large language and multimodal model performance. However, it is still an open question under which settings CoT systematically reduces performance. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of tasks where CoT reduces performance by drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, focusing on six representative tasks from the psychological literature where deliberation hurts performance in humans. In three of these tasks, state-of-the-art models exhibit significant performance drop-offs with CoT (up to 36.3\% absolute accuracy for OpenAI o1-preview compared to GPT-4o), while in others, CoT effects are mixed, with positive, neutral, and negative changes. While models and humans do not exhibit perfectly parallel cognitive processes, considering cases where thinking has negative consequences for humans helps identify settings where it negatively impacts models. By connecting the literature on human verbal thinking and deliberation with evaluations of CoT, we offer a perspective for understanding the impact of inference-time reasoning.

Jacy Reese Anthis, Ryan Liu, Sean M. Richardson et al.

Accurate and verifiable large language model (LLM) simulations of human research subjects promise an accessible data source for understanding human behavior and training new AI systems. However, results to date have been limited, and few social scientists have adopted this method. In this position paper, we argue that the promise of LLM social simulations can be achieved by addressing five tractable challenges. We ground our argument in a review of empirical comparisons between LLMs and human research subjects, commentaries on the topic, and related work. We identify promising directions, including context-rich prompting and fine-tuning with social science datasets. We believe that LLM social simulations can already be used for pilot and exploratory studies, and more widespread use may soon be possible with rapidly advancing LLM capabilities. Researchers should prioritize developing conceptual models and iterative evaluations to make the best use of new AI systems.

Ryan Liu, Theodore R. Sumers, Ishita Dasgupta et al.

In day-to-day communication, people often approximate the truth - for example, rounding the time or omitting details - in order to be maximally helpful to the listener. How do large language models (LLMs) handle such nuanced trade-offs? To address this question, we use psychological models and experiments designed to characterize human behavior to analyze LLMs. We test a range of LLMs and explore how optimization for human preferences or inference-time reasoning affects these trade-offs. We find that reinforcement learning from human feedback improves both honesty and helpfulness, while chain-of-thought prompting skews LLMs towards helpfulness over honesty. Finally, GPT-4 Turbo demonstrates human-like response patterns including sensitivity to the conversational framing and listener's decision context. Our findings reveal the conversational values internalized by LLMs and suggest that even these abstract values can, to a degree, be steered by zero-shot prompting.

Lance Ying, Katherine M. Collins, Lionel Wong et al.

Recent benchmark studies have claimed that AI has approached or even surpassed human-level performances on various cognitive tasks. However, this position paper argues that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities. We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks. We support our claims by conducting a human evaluation study on ten existing AI benchmarks, suggesting significant biases and flaws in task and label designs. To address these limitations, we propose five concrete recommendations for developing future benchmarks that will enable more rigorous and meaningful evaluations of human-like cognitive capacities in AI with various implications for such AI applications.

Kaiqu Liang, Haimin Hu, Ryan Liu et al. · princeton

While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has shown promise in aligning generative AI, we present empirical evidence that it can also cause severe, systematic misalignment. We hypothesize that this stems from evaluator feedback depending on downstream outcome predictions (foresight) that can be influenced by the AI's output, inducing Goodhart's law dynamics. We present a theoretical analysis showing that conditioning evaluator feedback on downstream observations (hindsight) inhibits this effect by decoupling the alignment signal from potentially compromised predictions--crucially, the result holds even if the observed outcomes are sampled from the AI's own world model. Building on this insight, we introduce Reinforcement Learning from Hindsight Simulation (RLHS), which presents plausible simulated outcomes to evaluators before eliciting feedback. We validate RLHS across three consultancy settings--marketplace interactions, restaurant recommendations, and online course advising--using both online (PPO) and offline (DPO) fine-tuning methods, and show that it substantially improves alignment over RLHF in experiments and human evaluations. We perform post-hoc benchmark evaluations on TruthfulQA, HaluEval, and TrustLLM, finding that even after single-task fine-tuning, RLHF misalignment persists, whereas RLHS consistently outperforms baselines and demonstrates robust alignment generalization. The project webpage and code are available at https://rl-hindsight.github.io.

Addison J. Wu, Ryan Liu, Shuyue Stella Li et al.

Today's large language models (LLMs) are trained to align with user preferences through methods such as reinforcement learning. Yet models are beginning to be deployed not merely to satisfy users, but also to generate revenue for the companies that created them through advertisements. This creates the potential for LLMs to face conflicts of interest, where the most beneficial response to a user may not be aligned with the company's incentives. For instance, a sponsored product may be more expensive but otherwise equal to another; in this case, what does (and should) the LLM recommend to the user? In this paper, we provide a framework for categorizing the ways in which conflicting incentives might lead LLMs to change the way they interact with users, inspired by literature from linguistics and advertising regulation. We then present a suite of evaluations to examine how current models handle these tradeoffs. We find that a majority of LLMs forsake user welfare for company incentives in a multitude of conflict of interest situations, including recommending a sponsored product almost twice as expensive (Grok 4.1 Fast, 83%), surfacing sponsored options to disrupt the purchasing process (GPT 5.1, 94%), and concealing prices in unfavorable comparisons (Qwen 3 Next, 24%). Behaviors also vary strongly with levels of reasoning and users' inferred socio-economic status. Our results highlight some of the hidden risks to users that can emerge when companies begin to subtly incentivize advertisements in chatbots.

Alexander Ku, Declan Campbell, Xuechunzi Bai et al.

Modern artificial intelligence systems, such as large language models, are increasingly powerful but also increasingly hard to understand. Recognizing this problem as analogous to the historical difficulties in understanding the human mind, we argue that methods developed in cognitive science can be useful for understanding large language models. We propose a framework for applying these methods based on the levels of analysis that David Marr proposed for studying information processing systems. By revisiting established cognitive science techniques relevant to each level and illustrating their potential to yield insights into the behavior and internal organization of large language models, we aim to provide a toolkit for making sense of these new kinds of minds.

Katherine M. Collins, Cedegao E. Zhang, Graham Todd et al.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over $100$ novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Addison J. Wu, Ryan Liu, Kerem Oktar et al.

Human communication is motivated: people speak, write, and create content with a particular communicative intent in mind. As a result, information that large language models (LLMs) and AI agents process is inherently framed by humans' intentions and incentives. People are adept at navigating such nuanced information: we routinely identify benevolent or self-serving motives in order to decide what statements to trust. For LLMs to be effective in the real world, they too must critically evaluate content by factoring in the motivations of the source -- for instance, weighing the credibility of claims made in a sales pitch. In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive study of whether LLMs have this capacity for motivational vigilance. We first employ controlled experiments from cognitive science to verify that LLMs' behavior is consistent with rational models of learning from motivated testimony, and find they successfully discount information from biased sources in a human-like manner. We then extend our evaluation to sponsored online adverts, a more naturalistic reflection of LLM agents' information ecosystems. In these settings, we find that LLMs' inferences do not track the rational models' predictions nearly as closely -- partly due to additional information that distracts them from vigilance-relevant considerations. However, a simple steering intervention that boosts the salience of intentions and incentives substantially increases the correspondence between LLMs and the rational model. These results suggest that LLMs possess a basic sensitivity to the motivations of others, but generalizing to novel real-world settings will require further improvements to these models.

Ryan Liu, Jiayi Geng, Joshua C. Peterson et al.

In order for AI systems to communicate effectively with people, they must understand how we make decisions. However, people's decisions are not always rational, so the implicit internal models of human decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) must account for this. Previous empirical evidence seems to suggest that these implicit models are accurate -- LLMs offer believable proxies of human behavior, acting how we expect humans would in everyday interactions. However, by comparing LLM behavior and predictions to a large dataset of human decisions, we find that this is actually not the case: when both simulating and predicting people's choices, a suite of cutting-edge LLMs (GPT-4o & 4-Turbo, Llama-3-8B & 70B, Claude 3 Opus) assume that people are more rational than we really are. Specifically, these models deviate from human behavior and align more closely with a classic model of rational choice -- expected value theory. Interestingly, people also tend to assume that other people are rational when interpreting their behavior. As a consequence, when we compare the inferences that LLMs and people draw from the decisions of others using another psychological dataset, we find that these inferences are highly correlated. Thus, the implicit decision-making models of LLMs appear to be aligned with the human expectation that other people will act rationally, rather than with how people actually act.

Ryan Liu, Spencer He

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a severe neuropsychiatric disorder that affects intellectual development, social behavior, and facial features, and the number of cases is still significantly increasing. Due to the variety of symptoms ASD displays, the diagnosis process remains challenging, with numerous misdiagnoses as well as lengthy and expensive diagnoses. Fortunately, if ASD is diagnosed and treated early, then the patient will have a much higher chance of developing normally. For an ASD diagnosis, machine learning algorithms can analyze both social behavior and facial features accurately and efficiently, providing an ASD diagnosis in a drastically shorter amount of time than through current clinical diagnosis processes. Therefore, we propose to develop a hybrid architecture fully utilizing both social behavior and facial feature data to improve the accuracy of diagnosing ASD. We first developed a Linear Support Vector Machine for the social behavior based module, which analyzes Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) social behavior data. For the facial feature based module, a DenseNet model was utilized to analyze facial feature image data. Finally, we implemented our hybrid model by incorporating different features of the Support Vector Machine and the DenseNet into one model. Our results show that the highest accuracy of 87% for ASD diagnosis has been achieved by our proposed hybrid model. The pros and cons of each module will be discussed in this paper.

Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu et al.

Many scientific conferences employ a two-phase paper review process, where some papers are assigned additional reviewers after the initial reviews are submitted. Many conferences also design and run experiments on their paper review process, where some papers are assigned reviewers who provide reviews under an experimental condition. In this paper, we consider the question: how should reviewers be divided between phases or conditions in order to maximize total assignment similarity? We make several contributions towards answering this question. First, we prove that when the set of papers requiring additional review is unknown, a simplified variant of this problem is NP-hard. Second, we empirically show that across several datasets pertaining to real conference data, dividing reviewers between phases/conditions uniformly at random allows an assignment that is nearly as good as the oracle optimal assignment. This uniformly random choice is practical for both the two-phase and conference experiment design settings. Third, we provide explanations of this phenomenon by providing theoretical bounds on the suboptimality of this random strategy under certain natural conditions. From these easily-interpretable conditions, we provide actionable insights to conference program chairs about whether a random reviewer split is suitable for their conference.

Spencer He, Ryan Liu

Currently, every 1 in 54 children have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which is 178% higher than it was in 2000. An early diagnosis and treatment can significantly increase the chances of going off the spectrum and making a full recovery. With a multitude of physical and behavioral tests for neurological and communication skills, diagnosing ASD is very complex, subjective, time-consuming, and expensive. We hypothesize that the use of machine learning analysis on facial features and social behavior can speed up the diagnosis of ASD without compromising real-world performance. We propose to develop a hybrid architecture using both categorical data and image data to automate traditional ASD pre-screening, which makes diagnosis a quicker and easier process. We created and tested a Logistic Regression model and a Linear Support Vector Machine for Module 1, which classifies ADOS categorical data. A Convolutional Neural Network and a DenseNet network are used for module 2, which classifies video data. Finally, we combined the best performing models, a Linear SVM and DenseNet, using three data averaging strategies. We used a standard average, weighted based on number of training data, and weighted based on the number of ASD patients in the training data to average the results, thereby increasing accuracy in clinical applications. The results we obtained support our hypothesis. Our novel architecture is able to effectively automate ASD pre-screening with a maximum weighted accuracy of 84%.

Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu et al.

We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the authors; (ii) "torpedo reviewing," where reviewers deliberately attempt to get assigned to certain papers that they dislike in order to reject them; (iii) reviewer de-anonymization on release of the similarities and the reviewer-assignment code. On the conceptual front, we identify connections between these three problems and present a framework that brings all these challenges under a common umbrella. We then present a (randomized) algorithm for reviewer assignment that can optimally solve the reviewer-assignment problem under any given constraints on the probability of assignment for any reviewer-paper pair. We further consider the problem of restricting the joint probability that certain suspect pairs of reviewers are assigned to certain papers, and show that this problem is NP-hard for arbitrary constraints on these joint probabilities but efficiently solvable for a practical special case. Finally, we experimentally evaluate our algorithms on datasets from past conferences, where we observe that they can limit the chance that any malicious reviewer gets assigned to their desired paper to 50% while producing assignments with over 90% of the total optimal similarity. Our algorithms still achieve this similarity while also preventing reviewers with close associations from being assigned to the same paper.