Reviewer Recommender of Pull-Requests in GitHub
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".