Pointed out by Dr. Hicks.
unless the load imbalance in the second solution is outweighed by
other benefits.
unless the load imbalance in the second solution is outweighed by
other benefits.
-For each reviewer $i$ and proposal $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
+For each reviewer $i$ and paper $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
to $j$ allowing that pair to be assigned, unless the reviewer declared a
conflict of interest, in which case the edge is not present. The edge cost is
to $j$ allowing that pair to be assigned, unless the reviewer declared a
conflict of interest, in which case the edge is not present. The edge cost is
-based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for proposal
+based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for paper
$j$. For values on the NSF scale of 1 (best) to 40 (worst), we chose the cost
function $(10 + d_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid
really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a
$j$. For values on the NSF scale of 1 (best) to 40 (worst), we chose the cost
function $(10 + d_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid
really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a