{"as_of":"2026-08-18T00:03:00Z","caps":{"database_statements":6,"inbound":100,"outbound":100},"context_digest":"sha256:3430c36ed50f110c9f0b3336b25fdf28234746d7637dfc5cc5f5b8e03590524a","coverage":[{"denominator":14,"lane":"reference_resolution","note":"Typed states for the displayed outbound observations.","records_observed":14,"source":"paper_references, paper_reference_links","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.849626Z","state":"measured"},{"denominator":14,"lane":"standing_notices","note":"One-hop event checks from named stored sources.","records_observed":14,"source":"scholarly_work_events, retraction_status_cache","source_observed_at":"2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00","state":"measured"},{"denominator":0,"lane":"inbound_itemization","note":"Pith citing papers itemized under the disclosed page cap.","records_observed":0,"source":"paper_references, paper_reference_links","source_observed_at":null,"state":"measured"},{"denominator":1,"lane":"external_citation_measurements","note":"A source-named dated measurement, never combined with another source.","records_observed":0,"source":"cited_works","source_observed_at":null,"state":"measured"}],"external_citation_measurements":[],"inbound":[],"links":{"evidence":"/evidence","html":"/paper/2607.25851/citation-record","integrity":"/paper/2607.25851/integrity","json":"/paper/2607.25851/citation-record.json","paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"outbound":[{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.804846Z","title":"Towards automating code review activities,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2021},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":1,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.804846Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:bdfab1d9289ee74af52e4ba8162ad9c0668d06e5fcfffeae48b1313749b70a4f","observation_id":"a2a71c2c-7108-4706-bab7-5550625f472e","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.804846Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.808556Z","title":"Autotransform: automated code transformation to support modern code review process,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2022},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":2,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.808556Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:b2bef4e69382f7937604070badd771008ad0a312bb349e18b250a79a9d9b7576","observation_id":"f8b93c23-8e3e-4e7a-a567-ec1038133022","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.808556Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.815002Z","title":"Commentfinder: a simpler, faster, more accurate code review comments recommendation,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2022},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":4,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.815002Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:98d6dab00f6b3c179a737372367ce7942ca5953a83316311593e87810bf38719","observation_id":"97a61154-bc46-4a44-9fb4-703ff179a055","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.815002Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.818120Z","title":"Auger: automatically generating review comments with pre-training models,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2022},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":5,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.818120Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:7c6e3912473b99757f03fc802ae3391a744a365ba56ec6f2f7ce41a0cfe8ed18","observation_id":"2eb4a626-8ff6-41e5-86fe-5aa6328414f5","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.818120Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.821124Z","title":"Code review automation: Strengths and weaknesses of the state of the art,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2024},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":6,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.821124Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:3b2594d71b7f54609c8671afdbf1f31bc6856488822cd218c8398067069ff30a","observation_id":"20ef35c1-fa56-4892-94f6-81ba9e5706a0","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.821124Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.824805Z","title":"Improving automated code reviews: Learning from experience,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2024},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":7,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.824805Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:7b725b753bf7d4de265126d2b8936e66517cc90da9994b4c139274c682ff2e6c","observation_id":"ca7e2db7-7782-430a-b7f4-ba19a3d60e6d","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.824805Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.827584Z","title":"Too Noisy To Learn: Enhancing Data Quality for Code Review Comment Generation ,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":8,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.827584Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:3e4ad03066340f418503880bd18988f15bd7007895eb477ff52e4df7a5a2b6aa","observation_id":"162cd076-2f0b-4b5d-b47c-86aa9a859a0f","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.827584Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.830530Z","title":"A systematic literature review and taxonomy of modern code review,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2021},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":9,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.830530Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:9a6913c768385bb798d0f34039cd4bcceeaafd5e72b50a9c7d56e496bc9d743b","observation_id":"dfcf3f95-72c0-4bc1-b989-042491ddf7ee","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.830530Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2503.09510","last_updated":"2025-03-12T16:19:10Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-16T12:50:41.324456Z","submitted_at":"2025-03-12T16:19:10Z","title":"Automating Code Review: A Systematic Literature Review","version":1},"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":"2503.09510","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.833950Z","title":"Automating code review: A systematic literature review,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":10,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.833950Z"},"links":{"cited_paper":"/paper/2503.09510","citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:7d9ab2835b3de7c630defd5996b04b23b4dc7a60e8bf6783abc5d52b8df70a19","observation_id":"2e885f7c-2863-438a-a61c-23247d13b8dc","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.833950Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.837149Z","title":"Fine-tuning large language models to improve accuracy and comprehensibility of automated code review,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2024},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":11,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.837149Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:fd854ca1823b1240f646aaeea3a4da5e4462bc0e488b7c90250b4a9280db63fd","observation_id":"370822b4-6373-4df2-9edd-0e54a12c49cb","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.837149Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2308.11148","last_updated":"2023-09-05T02:28:49Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-16T15:06:48.975104Z","submitted_at":"2023-08-22T03:10:40Z","title":"LLaMA-Reviewer: Advancing Code Review Automation with Large Language Models through Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning","version":2},"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":"2308.11148","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.840636Z","title":"Llama-reviewer: Advancing code review automation with large language models through parameter-efficient fine-tuning,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2023},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":12,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.840636Z"},"links":{"cited_paper":"/paper/2308.11148","citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:8850e4df3ea16b7afad17480ede385a66713b1a9e3c4b78463b3aa2bc514a716","observation_id":"65c8b42a-8de8-430d-a8f6-452620908bb8","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.840636Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.844229Z","title":"Exploring the potential of chatgpt in automated code refinement: An empirical study,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2024},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":13,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.844229Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:2d02694b753a46d0e991476ad0b79f70e63576d33d43290d8ee53065e4d2ca6c","observation_id":"04383244-63c1-4ee3-9f3d-56ab375a5075","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.844229Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.846714Z","title":"Less is more: On the importance of data quality for unit test generation,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":14,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.846714Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:1948013608602f78dc8d5127bc8c421723dc502f083704404fe8f6daaf6d7c4a","observation_id":"8f49fe43-048b-4971-931d-4c8fb99560ee","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.846714Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":"10.6084/m9.figshare.32296611","metadata_source":"doi_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:21:35.914731Z","title":"Replication package","venue":null,"work_id":"44ba0838-00ec-43f8-864b-31596e8fa1e6","year":null},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments","version":1},"reference_index":15,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:20:08.849626Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2607.25851"},"observation_digest":"sha256:8b10dcacf1355579bf10ee1df75df59fa39c65d691eb8e75f69a2b3be539de23","observation_id":"2ab292bc-b315-4cb6-aec3-6a6ebe1e6283","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-01T01:21:36.084736Z","resolver_source":"doi","status":"verified_exact"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-17T06:30:54.323127+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}}],"paper":{"arxiv_id":"2607.25851","last_updated":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","latest_version":1,"primary_category":"cs.SE","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-04T11:24:59.355028Z","submitted_at":"2026-07-28T15:24:30Z","title":"Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments"},"reference_resolution":{"displayed":14,"state_counts":{"malformed_identifier":0,"metadata_mismatch":0,"parse_uncertain":0,"unresolved":13,"verified_exact":1,"verified_fuzzy":0},"total_outbound_references":14},"refusal":"A citation records a reference. It does not transfer a finding from one paper to another.","schema":"pith.paper-citation-record.v1","standing_sources":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-17T06:30:54.323127+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"thesis":"As of 18 August 2026, this Paper Citation Record lists 14 of 14 outbound references and 0 inbound Pith citation observations for arXiv:2607.25851."}