Buxin Su

Buxin Su, Jiayao Zhang, Natalie Collina et al. · princeton

We conducted an experiment during the review process of the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), asking authors with multiple submissions to rank their papers based on perceived quality. In total, we received 1,342 rankings, each from a different author, covering 2,592 submissions. In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of how author-provided rankings could be leveraged to improve peer review processes at machine learning conferences. We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using the author-provided rankings. Our analysis shows that these ranking-calibrated scores outperform the raw review scores in estimating the ground truth ``expected review scores'' in terms of both squared and absolute error metrics. Furthermore, we propose several cautious, low-risk applications of the Isotonic Mechanism and author-provided rankings in peer review, including supporting senior area chairs in overseeing area chairs' recommendations, assisting in the selection of paper awards, and guiding the recruitment of emergency reviewers.

Buxin Su, Jiayao Zhang, Natalie Collina et al.

This article is the rejoinder to ``The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review,'' to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion. To address the practical and theoretical points raised by the discussants, we organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.

Chendi Wang, Buxin Su, Jiayuan Ye et al.

Differentially private (DP) machine learning algorithms incur many sources of randomness, such as random initialization, random batch subsampling, and shuffling. However, such randomness is difficult to take into account when proving differential privacy bounds because it induces mixture distributions for the algorithm's output that are difficult to analyze. This paper focuses on improving privacy bounds for shuffling models and one-iteration differentially private gradient descent (DP-GD) with random initializations using $f$-DP. We derive a closed-form expression of the trade-off function for shuffling models that outperforms the most up-to-date results based on $(ε,δ)$-DP. Moreover, we investigate the effects of random initialization on the privacy of one-iteration DP-GD. Our numerical computations of the trade-off function indicate that random initialization can enhance the privacy of DP-GD. Our analysis of $f$-DP guarantees for these mixture mechanisms relies on an inequality for trade-off functions introduced in this paper. This inequality implies the joint convexity of $F$-divergences. Finally, we study an $f$-DP analog of the advanced joint convexity of the hockey-stick divergence related to $(ε,δ)$-DP and apply it to analyze the privacy of mixture mechanisms.

Buxin Su, Weijie J. Su, Chendi Wang

The U.S. Decennial Census serves as the foundation for many high-profile policy decision-making processes, including federal funding allocation and redistricting. In 2020, the Census Bureau adopted differential privacy to protect the confidentiality of individual responses through a disclosure avoidance system that injects noise into census data tabulations. The Bureau subsequently posed an open question: Could stronger privacy guarantees be obtained for the 2020 U.S. Census compared to their published guarantees, or equivalently, had the privacy budgets been fully utilized? In this paper, we address this question affirmatively by demonstrating that the 2020 U.S. Census provides significantly stronger privacy protections than its nominal guarantees suggest at each of the eight geographical levels, from the national level down to the block level. This finding is enabled by our precise tracking of privacy losses using $f$-differential privacy, applied to the composition of private queries across these geographical levels. Our analysis reveals that the Census Bureau introduced unnecessarily high levels of noise to meet the specified privacy guarantees for the 2020 Census. Consequently, we show that noise variances could be reduced by $15.08\%$ to $24.82\%$ while maintaining nearly the same level of privacy protection for each geographical level, thereby improving the accuracy of privatized census statistics. We empirically demonstrate that reducing noise injection into census statistics mitigates distortion caused by privacy constraints in downstream applications of private census data, illustrated through a study examining the relationship between earnings and education.

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.

Xiang Li, Buxin Su, Chendi Wang et al.

Differentially private (DP) decentralized Federated Learning (FL) allows local users to collaborate without sharing their data with a central server. However, accurately quantifying the privacy budget of private FL algorithms is challenging due to the co-existence of complex algorithmic components such as decentralized communication and local updates. This paper addresses privacy accounting for two decentralized FL algorithms within the $f$-differential privacy ($f$-DP) framework. We develop two new $f$-DP-based accounting methods tailored to decentralized settings: Pairwise Network $f$-DP (PN-$f$-DP), which quantifies privacy leakage between user pairs under random-walk communication, and Secret-based $f$-Local DP (Sec-$f$-LDP), which supports structured noise injection via shared secrets. By combining tools from $f$-DP theory and Markov chain concentration, our accounting framework captures privacy amplification arising from sparse communication, local iterations, and correlated noise. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate that our methods yield consistently tighter $(ε,δ)$ bounds and improved utility compared to Rényi DP-based approaches, illustrating the benefits of $f$-DP in decentralized privacy accounting.

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.