Reviewer Recommender of Pull-Requests in GitHub
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pull-Request (PR) is the primary method for code contributions from thousands of developers in GitHub. To maintain the quality of software projects, PR review is an essential part of distributed software development. Assigning new PRs to appropriate reviewers will make the review process more effective which can reduce the time between the submission of a PR and the actual review of it. However, reviewer assignment is now organized manually in GitHub. To reduce this cost, we propose a reviewer recommender to predict highly relevant reviewers of incoming PRs. Combining information retrieval with social network analyzing, our approach takes full advantage of the textual semantic of PRs and the social relations of developers. We implement an online system to show how the reviewer recommender helps project managers to find potential reviewers from crowds. Our approach can reach a precision of 74% for top-1 recommendation, and a recall of 71% for top-10 recommendation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it