{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2023:OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y","short_pith_number":"pith:OEWVM22M","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"712d566b4c3cab3eb9def7cbf39e62fe0d6c6f693eb6c68504309eefcd20cbbf","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2306.03262","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"cs.LG","authors_text":"Alina Beygelzimer, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Percy Liang, Yann N. Dauphin","submitted_at":"2023-06-05T21:26:12Z","abstract_excerpt":"We present the NeurIPS 2021 consistency experiment, a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun. Our analysis suggests that making the conference more selective would increase the arbitrariness of t"},"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":"2306.03262","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.LG","submitted_at":"2023-06-05T21:26:12Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.DL"],"title_canon_sha256":"d21182781c5dca11b5ddc82a40d450814297f5d03439a71acb8e7f7e9cbd6b4e","abstract_canon_sha256":"60fc30e86f46e9a6c17b8016c60b2b06c6f001ad6d1f9e31178dbb859362baf2"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671476Z","signature_b64":"kIEgDwjIUVAj2wTKlne/cfO3PTVX+By6bKRaz+IegQph2A6+dc36JPOUBx/7Ti0SFgcIhEcO7fv6aQnwW4G8Bg==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"712d566b4c3cab3eb9def7cbf39e62fe0d6c6f693eb6c68504309eefcd20cbbf","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.670990Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.670990Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"cs.LG","authors_text":"Alina Beygelzimer, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Percy Liang, Yann N. Dauphin","submitted_at":"2023-06-05T21:26:12Z","abstract_excerpt":"We present the NeurIPS 2021 consistency experiment, a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun. Our analysis suggests that making the conference more selective would increase the arbitrariness of t"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2306.03262","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/2306.03262/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":"2306.03262","created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2306.03262v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2306.03262","created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"OEWVM22MHSVT","created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"OEWVM22MHSVT5OO6","created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"OEWVM22M","created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":6,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.04716","citing_title":"The State of Peer Review in Empirical Software Engineering: A Community Survey on Review Load, Quality, and GenAI Use","ref_index":5,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.31651","citing_title":"FARS: A Fully Automated Research System Deployed at Scale","ref_index":3,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.26730","citing_title":"PRISM: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Peer Reviewers","ref_index":17,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2509.13400","citing_title":"Justice in Judgment: Unveiling (Hidden) Bias in LLM-assisted Peer Reviews","ref_index":6,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.28158","citing_title":"Intern-Atlas: A Methodological Evolution Graph as Research Infrastructure for AI Scientists","ref_index":24,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.27900","citing_title":"Can We Volunteer Out of the Peer Review Crisis?","ref_index":7,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y","json":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/OEWVM22M"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/OEWVM22M","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2306.03262&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/OEWVM22MHSVT5OO667F7HHTC7Y/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T06:17:55.671049+00:00"}