REVIEW 4 cited by
Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-training
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-training
read the original abstract
Code review is an essential part to software development lifecycle since it aims at guaranteeing the quality of codes. Modern code review activities necessitate developers viewing, understanding and even running the programs to assess logic, functionality, latency, style and other factors. It turns out that developers have to spend far too much time reviewing the code of their peers. Accordingly, it is in significant demand to automate the code review process. In this research, we focus on utilizing pre-training techniques for the tasks in the code review scenario. We collect a large-scale dataset of real-world code changes and code reviews from open-source projects in nine of the most popular programming languages. To better understand code diffs and reviews, we propose CodeReviewer, a pre-trained model that utilizes four pre-training tasks tailored specifically for the code review scenario. To evaluate our model, we focus on three key tasks related to code review activities, including code change quality estimation, review comment generation and code refinement. Furthermore, we establish a high-quality benchmark dataset based on our collected data for these three tasks and conduct comprehensive experiments on it. The experimental results demonstrate that our model outperforms the previous state-of-the-art pre-training approaches in all tasks. Further analysis show that our proposed pre-training tasks and the multilingual pre-training dataset benefit the model on the understanding of code changes and reviews.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
RubberDuckBench: A Benchmark for AI Coding Assistants
RubberDuckBench shows top AI models score around 68% on real GitHub coding questions, rarely answer completely correctly, and hallucinate in 58% of responses on average.
-
SWE-Review: Closing the Loop on Issue Resolution with Agentic Code Review
An agentic code reviewer that explores repositories to judge and diagnose AI-generated pull requests improves resolve rates from 27.5% to 56.9% and outperforms single-turn review baselines.
-
On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories
Reviewer bots' higher comment volume on AI agent PRs is associated with slower resolutions and poorer average feedback quality, while feedback quality itself has no association with PR outcomes.
-
Understanding the Limits of Automated Evaluation for Code Review Bots in Practice
Automated LLM-based evaluation of code review bot comments achieves only moderate agreement (0.44-0.62) with developer labels in an industrial dataset because developer decisions reflect contextual constraints beyond ...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.