TL;DR
This paper models research funding as a decision problem under heavy-tailed uncertainty, proposing biased lottery mechanisms as scalable alternatives to peer review, supported by bibliometric data analysis.
Contribution
It introduces a decision-theoretic biased lottery framework balancing exploration and exploitation for research funding, validated through large-scale bibliometric data.
Findings
Funding allocations tend to favor top researchers under impact-based objectives.
Biased lottery mechanisms outperform traditional peer review in heavy-tailed environments.
A web app implementing the deterministic allocation method is provided.
Abstract
Heavy-tailed impact distributions, intrinsic uncertainty, and the high costs of proposal-based peer review increasingly challenge research funding decisions. Using large-scale bibliometric data, we show that past scientific performance provides statistically meaningful, though imperfect, information about future productivity and impact across multiple dimensions. An aggregated, percentile-normalised proxy signal captures this predictive structure robustly across research domains. We analyse deterministic and stochastic funding allocation mechanisms under impact-based objectives and find that both converge to highly concentrated allocations that favour a small number of top-performing researchers. To address the limitations of pure exploitation, we introduce a biased lottery framework based on a regularised decision-theoretic objective that explicitly balances exploration and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
