{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2019:3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF","short_pith_number":"pith:3OP7ZDMN","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"db9ffc8d8d9cc9b2a79bb6549d6dc9b1600afca801692406b9ca073dd6fb5c02","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"1909.11258","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"PaRe: A Paper-Reviewer Matching Approach Using a Common Topic Space","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.IR","cs.LG"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Hongyu Gong, Jinjun Xiong, Omer Anjum, Suma Bhat, Wen-Mei Hwu","submitted_at":"2019-09-25T02:25:23Z","abstract_excerpt":"Finding the right reviewers to assess the quality of conference submissions is a time consuming process for conference organizers. Given the importance of this step, various automated reviewer-paper matching solutions have been proposed to alleviate the burden. Prior approaches, including bag-of-words models and probabilistic topic models have been inadequate to deal with the vocabulary mismatch and partial topic overlap between a paper submission and the reviewer's expertise. Our approach, the common topic model, jointly models the topics common to the submission and the reviewer's profile wh"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"1909.11258","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CL","submitted_at":"2019-09-25T02:25:23Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.IR","cs.LG"],"title_canon_sha256":"369927c573ce60d57055820829eea3b1157ce44e0d2c412d40ec6bb568dedaad","abstract_canon_sha256":"3cb28aadd094d0d142d7d44b926fd78ea184ac1f53df740d37d6daaadbab41e8"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.955111Z","signature_b64":"x/izC4oJ40h9Izkto+2leiXNmM4s69P3jVYlgdz0aEqZ2YPedXFuD6vf8S53BCluZCQZJB9zah0xH70jWWMBDw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"db9ffc8d8d9cc9b2a79bb6549d6dc9b1600afca801692406b9ca073dd6fb5c02","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954745Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954745Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"PaRe: A Paper-Reviewer Matching Approach Using a Common Topic Space","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.IR","cs.LG"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Hongyu Gong, Jinjun Xiong, Omer Anjum, Suma Bhat, Wen-Mei Hwu","submitted_at":"2019-09-25T02:25:23Z","abstract_excerpt":"Finding the right reviewers to assess the quality of conference submissions is a time consuming process for conference organizers. Given the importance of this step, various automated reviewer-paper matching solutions have been proposed to alleviate the burden. Prior approaches, including bag-of-words models and probabilistic topic models have been inadequate to deal with the vocabulary mismatch and partial topic overlap between a paper submission and the reviewer's expertise. Our approach, the common topic model, jointly models the topics common to the submission and the reviewer's profile wh"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"1909.11258","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/1909.11258/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"1909.11258","created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"1909.11258v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.1909.11258","created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"3OP7ZDMNTTE3","created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43","created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"3OP7ZDMN","created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.18752","citing_title":"Traditional statistical representations outperform generative AI in identifying expert peer reviewers","ref_index":76,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF","json":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/3OP7ZDMN"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/3OP7ZDMN","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=1909.11258&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/3OP7ZDMNTTE3FJ43WZKJ23OJWF/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T00:07:17.954801+00:00"}