Strategic behavior is a fundamental problem in a variety of real-world applications that require some form of peer assessment, such as peer grading of assignments, grant proposal review, conference peer review, and peer assessment of employees. Since an individual's own work is in competition with the submissions they are evaluating, they may provide dishonest evaluations to increase the relative standing of their own submission. This issue is typically addressed by partitioning the individuals and assigning them to evaluate the work of only those from different subsets. Although this method ensures strategyproofness, each submission may require a different type of expertise for effective evaluation. In this paper, we focus on finding an assignment of evaluators to submissions that maximizes assigned expertise subject to the constraint of strategyproofness. We analyze the price of strategyproofness: that is, the amount of compromise on the assignment quality required in order to get strategyproofness. We establish several polynomial-time algorithms for strategyproof assignment along with assignment-quality guarantees. Finally, we evaluate the methods on a dataset from conference peer review.

本文研究评估者分配问题，旨在解决评估者保真行为与专业领域匹配性的矛盾，结合多项式时间算法进行实现，并通过会议同行评审数据集进行方法的评估。

通过划分策略来保证同行评估的正确性：以评估者的专业水平为代价