mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AUGER: Automatically Generating Review Comments with Pre-training Models

arXiv 2208.08014 ↗First posted 17 Aug 2022cs.SEcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Code review is one of the best practices as a powerful safeguard for software quality. In practice, senior or highly skilled reviewers inspect source code and provide constructive comments, considering what authors may ignore, for example, some special cases. The collaborative validation between contributors results in code being highly qualified and less chance of bugs. However, since personal knowledge is limited and varies, the efficiency and effectiveness of code review practice are worthy of further improvement. In fact, it still takes a colossal and time-consuming effort to deliver useful review comments. This paper explores a synergy of multiple practical review comments to enhance code review and proposes AUGER (AUtomatically GEnerating Review comments): a review comments generator with pre-training models. We first collect empirical review data from 11 notable Java projects and construct a dataset of 10,882 code changes. By leveraging Text-to-Text Transfer Transformer (T5) models, the framework synthesizes valuable knowledge in the training stage and effectively outperforms baselines by 37.38% in ROUGE-L. 29% of our automatic review comments are considered useful according to prior studies. The inference generates just in 20 seconds and is also open to training further. Moreover, the performance also gets improved when thoroughly analyzed in case study.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2022.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 6; 2025: 10; 2026: 4.

23 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
  2. 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Surveycited by 173
  3. 2024LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugscited by 138
  4. 2023LLaMA-Reviewer: Advancing Code Review Automation with Large Language Models through Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuningcited by 47
  5. 2024Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyondcited by 35
  6. 2023Deep Learning for Code Intelligence: Survey, Benchmark and Toolkitcited by 22
  7. 2024Prompting and Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Automated Code Review Comment Generationcited by 7
  8. 2025Combining Large Language Models with Static Analyzers for Code Review Generationcited by 6
  9. 2025Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Comment Generationcited by 6
  10. 2024Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generationcited by 4
  11. 2025Issue-Oriented Agent-Based Framework for Automated Review Comment Generationcited by 4
  12. 2025Benchmarking LLMs for Fine-Grained Code Review with Enriched Context in Practicecited by 4
11 more
  1. 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Codecited by 4
  2. 2026SWE-Review: Closing the Loop on Issue Resolution with Agentic Code Reviewcited by 4
  3. 2025Towards Practical Defect-Focused Automated Code Reviewcited by 3
  4. 2025When More Retrieval Hurts: Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Generationcited by 2
  5. 2024Automatic Detection of LLM-Generated Code: A Comparative Case Study of Contemporary Models Across Function and Class Granularitiescited by 1
  6. 2025Previously on... Automating Code Reviewcited by 1
  7. 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Reviewcited by 1
  8. 2025Improving Automated Secure Code Reviews: A Synthetic Dataset for Code Vulnerability Flawscited by 0
  9. 2025Fine-Tuning Multilingual Language Models for Code Review: An Empirical Study on Industrial C# Projectscited by 0
  10. 2025A Note on Code Quality Score: LLMs for Maintainable Large Codebasescited by 0
  11. 2026XSearch: Explainable Code Search via Concept-to-Code Alignmentcited by 0