Context- and Fairness-Aware In-Process Crowdworker Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying and optimizing open participation is essential to the success of open software development. Existing studies highlighted the importance of worker recommendation for crowdtesting tasks in order to improve bug detection efficiency, i.e., detect more bugs with fewer workers. However, there are a couple of limitations in existing work. First, these studies mainly focus on one-time recommendations based on expertise matching at the beginning of a new task. Second, the recommendation results suffer from severe popularity bias, i.e., highly experienced workers are recommended in almost all the tasks, while less experienced workers rarely get recommended. This article argues the need for context- and fairness-aware in-process crowdworker recommendation in order to address these limitations. We motivate this study through a pilot study, revealing the prevalence of long-sized non-yielding windows, i.e., no new bugs are revealed in consecutive test reports during the process of a crowdtesting task. This indicates the potential opportunity for accelerating crowdtesting by recommending appropriate workers in a dynamic manner, so that the non-yielding windows could be shortened. Besides, motivated by the popularity bias in existing crowdworker recommendation approach, this study also aims at alleviating the unfairness in recommendations. Driven by these observations, this article proposes a context- and fairness-aware in-process crowdworker recommendation approach, iRec2.0, to detect more bugs earlier, shorten the non-yielding windows, and alleviate the unfairness in recommendations. It consists of three main components: (1) the modeling of dynamic testing context, (2) the learning-based ranking component, and (3) the multi-objective optimization-based re-ranking component. The evaluation is conducted on 636 crowdtesting tasks from one of the largest crowdtesting platforms, and results show the potential of iRec2.0 in improving the cost-effectiveness of crowdtesting by saving the cost, shortening the testing process, and alleviating the unfairness among workers. In detail, iRec2.0 could shorten the non-yielding window by a median of 50%–66% in different application scenarios, and consequently have potential of saving testing cost by a median of 8%–12%. Meanwhile, the recommendation frequency of the crowdworker drop from 34%–60% to 5%–26% under different scenarios, indicating its potential in alleviating the unfairness among crowdworkers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".