Understanding Open Source Contributor Profiles in Popular Machine Learning Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing popularity of machine learning (ML), many open source software (OSS) contributors are attracted to developing and adopting ML approaches. Comprehensive understanding of ML contributors is crucial for successful ML OSS development and maintenance. Without such knowledge, there is a risk of inefficient resource allocation and hindered collaboration in ML OSS projects. Existing research focuses on understanding the difficulties and challenges perceived by ML contributors through user surveys. There is a lack of understanding of ML contributors based on their activities recorded in the software repositories. In this article, we aim to understand ML contributors by identifying contributor profiles in ML libraries. We further study contributors’ OSS engagement from four aspects: workload composition, work preferences, technical importance, and ML-specific versus SE contributions. By investigating 11,949 contributors from eight popular ML libraries (i.e., TensorFlow, PyTorch, scikit-learn, Keras, MXNet, Theano/Aesara, ONNX, and deeplearning4j), we categorize them into four contributor profiles: Core-Nighttime , Core-Daytime , Peripheral-Nighttime , and Peripheral-Daytime . We find that: (1) project experience, authored files, collaborations, pull requests comments received and approval ratio, and geographical location are significant features of all profiles; (2) contributors in Core profiles exhibit significantly different OSS engagement compared to Peripheral profiles; (3) contributors’ work preferences and workload compositions are significantly correlated with project popularity; and (4) long-term contributors evolve toward making fewer, constant, balanced and less technical contributions.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".