Instance-Optimality in the Noisy Value-and Comparison-Model --- Accept,   Accept, Strong Accept: Which Papers get in?
Motivated by crowdsourced computation, peer-grading, and recommendation systems, Braverman, Mao and Weinberg [STOC'16] studied the \emph{query} and \emph{round} complexity of fundamental problems such as finding the maximum (\textsc{max}), finding all elements above a certain value (\textsc{threshold-$v$}) or computing the top$-k$ elements (\textsc{Top}-$k$) in a noisy environment.   For example, consider the task of selecting papers for a conference. This task is challenging due the crowdsourcing nature of peer reviews: the results of reviews are noisy and it is necessary to parallelize the review process as much as possible. We study the noisy value model and the noisy comparison model: In the \emph{noisy value model}, a reviewer is asked to evaluate a single element: "What is the value of paper $i$?" (\eg accept). In the \emph{noisy comparison model} (introduced in the seminal work of Feige, Peleg, Raghavan and Upfal [SICOMP'94]) a reviewer is asked to do a pairwise comparison: "Is paper $i$ better than paper $j$?"   In this paper, we show optimal worst-case query complexity for the \textsc{max},\textsc{threshold-$v$} and \textsc{Top}-$k$ problems. For \textsc{max} and \textsc{Top}-$k$, we obtain optimal worst-case upper and lower bounds on the round vs query complexity in both models. For \textsc{threshold}-$v$, we obtain optimal query complexity and nearly-optimal round complexity, where $k$ is the size of the output) for both models.   We then go beyond the worst-case and address the question of the importance of knowledge of the instance by providing, for a large range of parameters, instance-optimal algorithms with respect to the query complexity. Furthermore, we show that the value model is strictly easier than the comparison model.