Bo Su

Garrett G. Wen, Buxin Su, Natalie Collina et al.

Machine learning and artificial intelligence conferences such as NeurIPS and ICML now regularly receive tens of thousands of submissions, posing significant challenges to maintaining the quality and consistency of the peer review process. This challenge is particularly acute for best paper awards, which are an important part of the peer review process, yet whose selection has increasingly become a subject of debate in recent years. In this paper, we introduce an author-assisted mechanism to facilitate the selection of best paper awards. Our method employs the Isotonic Mechanism for eliciting authors' assessments of their own submissions in the form of a ranking, which is subsequently utilized to adjust the raw review scores for optimal estimation of the submissions' ground-truth quality. We demonstrate that authors are incentivized to report truthfully when their utility is a convex additive function of the adjusted scores, and we validate this convexity assumption for best paper awards using publicly accessible review data of ICLR from 2019 to 2023 and NeurIPS from 2021 to 2023. Crucially, in the special case where an author has a single quota -- that is, may nominate only one paper -- we prove that truthfulness holds even when the utility function is merely nondecreasing and additive. This finding represents a substantial relaxation of the assumptions required in prior work. For practical implementation, we extend our mechanism to accommodate the common scenario of overlapping authorship. Finally, simulation results demonstrate that our mechanism significantly improves the quality of papers selected for awards.

Buxin Su, Natalie Collina, Garrett Wen et al.

Peer review in academic research aims not only to ensure factual correctness but also to identify work of high scientific potential that can shape future research directions. This task is especially critical in fast-moving fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), yet it has become increasingly difficult given the rapid growth of submissions. In this paper, we investigate an underexplored measure for identifying high-impact research: authors' own rankings of their multiple submissions to the same AI conference. Grounded in game-theoretic reasoning, we hypothesize that self-rankings are informative because authors possess unique understanding of their work's conceptual depth and long-term promise. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a large-scale experiment at a leading AI conference, where 1,342 researchers self-ranked their 2,592 submissions by perceived quality. Tracking outcomes over more than a year, we found that papers ranked highest by their authors received twice as many citations as their lowest-ranked counterparts; self-rankings were especially effective at identifying highly cited papers (those with over 150 citations). Moreover, we showed that self-rankings outperformed peer review scores in predicting future citation counts. Our results remained robust after accounting for confounders such as preprint posting time and self-citations. Together, these findings demonstrate that authors' self-rankings provide a reliable and valuable complement to peer review for identifying and elevating high-impact research in AI.