OpeNTF: A Benchmark Library for Neural Team Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We contribute OpeNTF, an open-source python-based benchmark library to support neural team formation research. Team formation falls under social information retrieval (Social IR), where the right group of experts should be retrieved to solve a task, which is intractable due to the vast pool of feasible candidates with diverse skills. Even though neural networks could successfully address efficiency while maintaining efficacy, they lack standard implementation and experimental details, which calls for excessive efforts in repeating or reproducing the results in new domains. OpeNTF provides a standard and reproducible platform for neural team formation. It incorporates a host of canonical neural models along with three large-scale training datasets from varying domains. Leveraging an object-oriented structure, OpeNTF readily accommodates the addition of new neural models and training datasets. The first of its kind in neural team formation, OpeNTF also offers negative sampling heuristics that can be seamlessly integrated during model training to boost efficiency and to improve the effectiveness of inference.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
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".