How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions?

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate-about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

Adaptive diagnosis in distributed systems.

Real-time problem diagnosis in large distributed computer systems and networks is a challenging task that requires fast and accurate inferences from potentially huge data volumes. In this paper, we propose a cost-efficient, adaptive diagnostic technique called active probing. Probes are end-to-end test transactions that collect information about the performance of a distributed system. Active probing uses probabilistic reasoning techniques combined with information-theoretic approach, and allows a fast online inference about the current system state via active selection of only a small number of most-informative tests. We demonstrate empirically that the active probing scheme greatly reduces both the number of probes (from 60% to 75% in most of our real-life applications), and the time needed for localizing the problem when compared with nonadaptive (preplanned) probing schemes. We also provide some theoretical results on the complexity of probe selection, and the effect of "noisy" probes on the accuracy of diagnosis. Finally, we discuss how to model the system's dynamics using dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs), and an efficient approximate approach called sequential multifault; empirical results demonstrate clear advantage of such approaches over "static" techniques that do not handle system's changes.