Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Beyond Paper-to-Paper: Structured Profiling and Rubric Scoring for Paper-Reviewer Matching

Yicheng Pan, Zhiyuan Ning, Ludi Wang, Yi Du

Published

Apr 7, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

High

Usefulness score

65/100 (Medium)

Extraction confidence

80% (High)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Domain Experts

Signals refreshed

Apr 7, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Use this as a practical starting point for protocol research, then validate against the original paper.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
65/100
Moderate-confidence candidate

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Abstract

As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge. Most existing methods follow a ``Paper-to-Paper'' matching paradigm, implicitly representing a reviewer by their publication history. However, effective reviewer matching requires capturing multi-dimensional expertise, and textual similarity to past papers alone is often insufficient. To address this gap, we propose P2R, a training-free framework that shifts from implicit paper-to-paper matching to explicit profile-based matching. P2R uses general-purpose LLMs to construct structured profiles for both submissions and reviewers, disentangling them into Topics, Methodologies, and Applications. Building on these profiles, P2R adopts a coarse-to-fine pipeline to balance efficiency and depth. It first performs hybrid retrieval that combines semantic and aspect-level signals to form a high-recall candidate pool, and then applies an LLM-based committee to evaluate candidates under strict rubrics, integrating both multi-dimensional expert views and a holistic Area Chair perspective. Experiments on NeurIPS, SIGIR, and SciRepEval show that P2R consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Ablation studies further verify the necessity of each component. Overall, P2R highlights the value of explicit, structured expertise modeling and offers practical guidance for applying LLMs to reviewer matching.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Rubric Rating

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Scirepeval

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Experiments on NeurIPS, SIGIR, and SciRepEval show that P2R consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines."

Reported Metrics

strong

Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"It first performs hybrid retrieval that combines semantic and aspect-level signals to form a high-recall candidate pool, and then applies an LLM-based committee to evaluate candidates under strict rubrics, integrating both multi-dimensional expert views and a holistic Area Chair perspective."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"However, effective reviewer matching requires capturing multi-dimensional expertise, and textual similarity to past papers alone is often insufficient."

Benchmarks and datasets

Scirepeval

Reported metrics

recall
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Rubric Rating
Rater population
Domain Experts
Unit of annotation
Multi Dim Rubric
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
High
Use this page as
Secondary protocol comparison source

Research brief

Metadata summary

As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge.
  • Most existing methods follow a ``Paper-to-Paper'' matching paradigm, implicitly representing a reviewer by their publication history.
  • However, effective reviewer matching requires capturing multi-dimensional expertise, and textual similarity to past papers alone is often insufficient.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Contribution summary

  • To address this gap, we propose P2R, a training-free framework that shifts from implicit paper-to-paper matching to explicit profile-based matching.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Rubric Rating

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Scirepeval

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: recall