arXiv (All)
open access
The Review Lottery: Calibrating an Observational Estimator of Peer-Review Noise (ICLR 2017-2025)
How much of a conference accept/reject decision would change if the same paper were reviewed by a different set of reviewers? Running a second independent program committee is the gold standard for answering this, but it is prohibitively expensive: done only twice (NeurIPS 2014 and 2021). We build a
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Review Lottery: Calibrating an Observational Estimator of Peer-Review Noise (ICLR 2017-2025)#1194481
- Who Pays for Open Review? Visible Author Reputation and Its Effect on Ratings#999966
- Automated analysis of reviewer feedback to understand funding evaluation#385700
- The Distortion of Threshold Approval Multiwinner Voting#1298221
- Randomized Experiments with Ambiguous Record Linkage#1325959
Record · ID 1215688
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive