From 08f65a95a67fa8835b97a387d9d1e285972ca22a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt McCutchen Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:38:06 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Rename "desirability" to "preference" (much less awkward), with the notation a_{ij} to avoid a collision with paper nodes. --- paper/flow.fig | 6 +++--- paper/paper.tex | 20 ++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/paper/flow.fig b/paper/flow.fig index 937c49f..02c9259 100644 --- a/paper/flow.fig +++ b/paper/flow.fig @@ -155,8 +155,8 @@ Single 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 195 720 5925 1725 $p^1_1$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 195 720 5925 2400 $p^2_1$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 195 720 5925 3000 $p^3_1$\001 -4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.5236 6 180 1710 3375 3225 $(1,(10+d_{21})^2)$\001 -4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.7854 6 180 1710 3525 4950 $(1,(10+d_{31})^2)$\001 +4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.5236 6 180 1710 3375 3225 $(1,(10+a_{21})^2)$\001 +4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.7854 6 180 1710 3525 4950 $(1,(10+a_{31})^2)$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 2 180 570 2400 3975 \\eg{C}\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 165 345 825 2175 $C$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 180 675 2475 3720 $r^2_2$\001 @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ Single 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 195 2820 5925 2700 \\eg{G} $(1,-c_2)$ and $(\\infty, 0)$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 6 180 840 4725 4875 $(1,-c_1)$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 2 180 555 4950 4650 \\eg{E}\001 -4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 5.8469 6 195 2325 3225 975 \\eg{D} $(1,(10+d_{11})^2)$\001 +4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 5.8469 6 195 2325 3225 975 \\eg{D} $(1,(10+a_{11})^2)$\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 2 180 1995 5925 7275 with the implementation\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 2 180 2370 5925 7050 Edge groups cross-referenced\001 4 0 0 50 -1 0 12 0.0000 2 180 570 5550 7050 \\eg{A}\001 diff --git a/paper/paper.tex b/paper/paper.tex index a332681..fd0bd2c 100644 --- a/paper/paper.tex +++ b/paper/paper.tex @@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ thirty to forty program committee members. From now on we will focus on the problem of assigning papers to reviewers. We assume that each reviewer is given access to the -list of papers to be reviewed, and gives each paper both a ``desirability'' +list of papers to be reviewed, and gives each paper both a ``preference'' score indicating his/her level of interest in reviewing the paper and an ``expertise'' score indicating how qualified he/she is to evaluate the paper. -(Some organizations may choose to use a single set of scores for both -desirability and expertise. We believe that making this distinction may better +(Some organizations may use a single preference score and assume that it +also indicates expertise. We believe that making the distinction may better model the real-world objective.) A reviewer may also declare a conflict of interest with a particular paper, meaning that he/she is forbidden to review the paper. @@ -162,21 +162,21 @@ other benefits. 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 -based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for paper +based on the preference value $a_{ij}$ 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 +function $(10 + a_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a good matched pair and an excellent one. This choice seeks only to achieve a natural relationship between a linear preference scale as normally interpreted and the costs to be used in the optimization. We realize that strategic -reviewers will take the cost function into account in choosing what desirability +reviewers will take the cost function into account in choosing what preference values to submit, in which case its form matters little. Alongside these purely additive per-review costs, we want to avoid an individual reviewer getting too many papers he/she does not like. With respect to a reviewer $i$, we classify papers as ``interesting'', -``boring'', or ``very boring'' based on their desirability values; +``boring'', or ``very boring'' based on their preference values; the thresholds for these classes are currently the same for all reviewers. The edge for reviewer $i$ and paper $j$ leaves from $r^1_i$ if $j$ is interesting, $r^2_i$ if $j$ is boring, or @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ paper 1 is interesting to reviewer 1 and boring to reviewers 2 and 3. Reviewer 2 is expert on paper 1, with reviewers 1 and 3 merely knowledgeable. (Reviewer edges for paper 2 are not shown.) This illustrates how, in principle, -the desirability and expertise relations might differ. +the preference and expertise relations might differ. Each is taken into account at a different stage of the construction. The cost of a flow (assignment) is the sum of its reviewer overload costs, @@ -268,9 +268,9 @@ document may be browsed or downloaded at (NOT YET): There are currently two branches: \begin{itemize} \item \code{master} has the tool as originally designed for NSF, with no -distinction between desirability and expertise. +distinction between preference and expertise. \item \code{popl2012} is the basis of the version used for POPL 2012. The main -differences are that it has separate desirability and expertise, support for +differences are that it has separate preference and expertise, support for ``fixing'' previously chosen reviewer-paper pairs (buggy, however), and the special ERC gadget. \end{itemize} -- 2.34.1