Generation-based Code Review Automation: How Far Are We?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Code review is an effective software quality assurance activity; however, it is labor-intensive and time-consuming. Thus, a number of generation-based automatic code review (ACR) approaches have been proposed recently, which leverage deep learning techniques to automate various activities in the code review process (e.g., code revision generation and review comment generation). We find the previous works carry three main limitations. First, the ACR approaches have been shown to be beneficial in each work, but those methods are not comprehensively compared with each other to show their superiority over their peer ACR approaches. Second, general-purpose pre-trained models such as CodeT5 are proven to be effective in a wide range of Software Engineering (SE) tasks. However, no prior work has investigated the effectiveness of these models in ACR tasks yet. Third, prior works heavily rely on the Exact Match (EM) metric which only focuses on the perfect predictions and ignores the positive progress made by incomplete answers. To fill such a research gap, we conduct a comprehensive study by comparing the effectiveness of recent ACR tools as well as the general-purpose pre-trained models. The results show that a general-purpose pre-trained model CodeT5 can outperform other models in most cases. Specifically, CodeT5 outperforms the prior state-of-the-art by 13.4%--38.9% in two code revision generation tasks. In addition, we introduce a new metric namely Edit Progress (EP) to quantify the partial progress made by ACR tools. The results show that the rankings of models for each task could be changed according to whether EM or EP is being utilized. Lastly, we derive several insightful lessons from the experimental results and reveal future research directions for generation-based code review automation.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Mar 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 5; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2024CodeUltraFeedback: An LLM-as-a-Judge Dataset for Aligning Large Language Models to Coding Preferencescited by 56
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Reviewcited by 33
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reviewcited by 7
- 2025Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Comment Generationcited by 6
- 2023Co-audit: tools to help humans double-check AI-generated contentcited by 5
- 2025Benchmarking LLMs for Fine-Grained Code Review with Enriched Context in Practicecited by 4
- 2025Previously on... Automating Code Reviewcited by 1
- 2025On Assessing the Relevance of Code Reviews Authored by Generative Modelscited by 0
- 2026Fine-grained Approaches for Confidence Calibration of LLMs in Automated Code Revisioncited by 0
- 2026Fine-grained Approaches for Confidence Calibration of LLMs in Automated Code Revision8 Apr 2026
- 2025On Assessing the Relevance of Code Reviews Authored by Generative Models17 Dec 2025
- 2025Benchmarking LLMs for Fine-Grained Code Review with Enriched Context in Practice10 Nov 2025
- 2025Previously on... Automating Code Review25 Aug 2025
- 2025Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Comment Generation13 Jun 2025
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Review26 May 2025
- 2024CodeUltraFeedback: An LLM-as-a-Judge Dataset for Aligning Large Language Models to Coding Preferences14 Mar 2024
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review3 Feb 2024
- 2023Co-audit: tools to help humans double-check AI-generated content2 Oct 2023