{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2012:YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3","short_pith_number":"pith:YKN2UI7Z","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"c29baa23f9d66bd50810862ebcd24dbeef7f98bdbbafd848e65c71fb2efed867","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"1202.3706","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"A Framework for Optimizing Paper Matching","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.IR","authors_text":"Craig Boutilier, Laurent Charlin, Richard S. Zemel","submitted_at":"2012-02-14T16:41:17Z","abstract_excerpt":"At the heart of many scientific conferences is the problem of matching submitted papers to suitable reviewers. Arriving at a good assignment is a major and important challenge for any conference organizer. In this paper we propose a framework to optimize paper-to-reviewer assignments. Our framework uses suitability scores to measure pairwise affinity between papers and reviewers. We show how learning can be used to infer suitability scores from a small set of provided scores, thereby reducing the burden on reviewers and organizers. We frame the assignment problem as an integer program and prop"},"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":"1202.3706","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.IR","submitted_at":"2012-02-14T16:41:17Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI"],"title_canon_sha256":"ce5a956660435f752c43eed932337a4f6c94da87287ba62ff3637071d64300a2","abstract_canon_sha256":"0f11822a5eade6cdd75e3650d4610111faeace897d1c009196b80c636b56b627"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469986Z","signature_b64":"E7+exHR6KGjho3MlkwI+vSa1cxFK/n4dOomo4dZoUU9KSOBZZSk4XhKkZ4RsQ40h7SbHSpwFqUR0R+3hwQ5FDg==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"c29baa23f9d66bd50810862ebcd24dbeef7f98bdbbafd848e65c71fb2efed867","last_reissued_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469494Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469494Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"A Framework for Optimizing Paper Matching","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.IR","authors_text":"Craig Boutilier, Laurent Charlin, Richard S. Zemel","submitted_at":"2012-02-14T16:41:17Z","abstract_excerpt":"At the heart of many scientific conferences is the problem of matching submitted papers to suitable reviewers. Arriving at a good assignment is a major and important challenge for any conference organizer. In this paper we propose a framework to optimize paper-to-reviewer assignments. Our framework uses suitability scores to measure pairwise affinity between papers and reviewers. We show how learning can be used to infer suitability scores from a small set of provided scores, thereby reducing the burden on reviewers and organizers. We frame the assignment problem as an integer program and prop"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"1202.3706","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":""},"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":"1202.3706","created_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469560+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"1202.3706v1","created_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469560+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.1202.3706","created_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469560+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"YKN2UI7Z2ZV5","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:27:27.928770+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQ","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:27:27.928770+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"YKN2UI7Z","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:27:27.928770+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":2,"internal_anchor_count":2,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.18752","citing_title":"Traditional statistical representations outperform generative AI in identifying expert peer reviewers","ref_index":80,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.18752","citing_title":"Traditional statistical representations outperform generative AI in identifying expert peer reviewers","ref_index":17,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3","json":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/YKN2UI7Z"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/YKN2UI7Z","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=1202.3706&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/YKN2UI7Z2ZV5KCAQQYXLZUSNX3/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469560+00:00","updated_at":"2026-05-18T04:02:03.469560+00:00"}