{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2022:J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC","short_pith_number":"pith:J33ULWNW","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"4ef745d9b6f090df786c03b4e5d162388db4cec2fcc964e75d0a6a241a8e352c","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2211.12966","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions?","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.DB","cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"cs.LG","authors_text":"Alina Beygelzimer, Charvi Rastogi, Emma Pierson, Hal Daum\\'e III, Ivan Stelmakh, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Nihar B. Shah, Percy Liang, Yann N. Dauphin, Zhenyu Xue","submitted_at":"2022-11-22T15:59:30Z","abstract_excerpt":"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 survey 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 have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the"},"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":"2211.12966","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.LG","submitted_at":"2022-11-22T15:59:30Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.DB","cs.DL"],"title_canon_sha256":"5313f70a4336074f208d10d5e74f49b8221c5d0e03cef410421ff5af0617f76d","abstract_canon_sha256":"fc4dac383d329313390c96738eb91ef1e0388a800078afb6d37ac56b972e963a"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.854241Z","signature_b64":"p/WzFXaPgTB8BSfgMyUuB5ty7xf0lQx95EEj6iddKpRYfwgrdilOoElTa4+okcFh/OU+juqQRS1bYjQC/DkHDA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"4ef745d9b6f090df786c03b4e5d162388db4cec2fcc964e75d0a6a241a8e352c","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853791Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853791Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions?","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.DB","cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"cs.LG","authors_text":"Alina Beygelzimer, Charvi Rastogi, Emma Pierson, Hal Daum\\'e III, Ivan Stelmakh, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Nihar B. Shah, Percy Liang, Yann N. Dauphin, Zhenyu Xue","submitted_at":"2022-11-22T15:59:30Z","abstract_excerpt":"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 survey 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 have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2211.12966","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/2211.12966/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":"2211.12966","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2211.12966v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2211.12966","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"J33ULWNW6CIN","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"J33ULWNW6CIN66DM","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"J33ULWNW","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.25172","citing_title":"Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review","ref_index":8,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC","json":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/J33ULWNW"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/J33ULWNW","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2211.12966&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/J33ULWNW6CIN66DMAO2OLULCHC/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T05:18:56.853848+00:00"}