mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generation

arXiv 2409.10959 ↗First posted 17 Sep 2024cs.SE cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Modern code review is a ubiquitous software quality assurance process aimed at identifying potential issues within newly written code. Despite its effectiveness, the process demands large amounts of effort from the human reviewers involved. To help alleviate this workload, researchers have trained deep learning models to imitate human reviewers in providing natural language code reviews. Formally, this task is known as code review comment generation. Prior work has demonstrated improvements in this task by leveraging machine learning techniques and neural models, such as transfer learning and the transformer architecture. However, the quality of the model generated reviews remain sub-optimal due to the quality of the open-source code review data used in model training. This is in part due to the data obtained from open-source projects where code reviews are conducted in a public forum, and reviewers possess varying levels of software development experience, potentially affecting the quality of their feedback. To accommodate for this variation, we propose a suite of experience-aware training methods that utilise the reviewers' past authoring and reviewing experiences as signals for review quality. Specifically, we propose experience-aware loss functions (ELF), which use the reviewers' authoring and reviewing ownership of a project as weights in the model's loss function. Through this method, experienced reviewers' code reviews yield larger influence over the model's behaviour. Compared to the SOTA model, ELF was able to generate higher quality reviews in terms of accuracy, informativeness, and comment types generated. The key contribution of this work is the demonstration of how traditional software engineering concepts such as reviewer experience can be integrated into the design of AI-based automated code review models.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 103 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2024.

Builds on

40 of 103 references.

References · 40

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  4. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  5. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  6. 2021CodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 732
  7. 2017A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalnesscited by 220
  8. 2017Active Bias: Training More Accurate Neural Networks by Emphasizing High Variance Samplescited by 147
  9. 2013Stochastic Gradient Descent, Weighted Sampling, and the Randomized Kaczmarz algorithmcited by 132
  10. 2023InferFix: End-to-End Program Repair with LLMscited by 113
  11. 2018An Empirical Study on Learning Bug-Fixing Patches in the Wild via Neural Machine Translationcited by 106
  12. 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
28 more
  1. 2021CURE: Code-Aware Neural Machine Translation for Automatic Program Repaircited by 85
  2. 2022Using Pre-Trained Models to Boost Code Review Automationcited by 63
  3. 2021Towards Automating Code Review Activitiescited by 54
  4. 2019On Learning Meaningful Code Changes via Neural Machine Translationcited by 50
  5. 2023Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT in Automated Code Refinement: An Empirical Studycited by 44
  6. 2015On the "Naturalness" of Buggy Codecited by 35
  7. 2022AUGER: Automatically Generating Review Comments with Pre-training Modelscited by 23
  8. 2024Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Artcited by 20
  9. 2023CCT5: A Code-Change-Oriented Pre-Trained Modelcited by 17
  10. 2024AI-Assisted Assessment of Coding Practices in Modern Code Reviewcited by 16
  11. 2022Online Easy Example Mining for Weakly-supervised Gland Segmentation from Histology Imagescited by 15
  12. 2018Predicting Usefulness of Code Review Comments using Textual Features and Developer Experiencecited by 13
  13. 2024Improving Automated Code Reviews: Learning from Experiencecited by 13
  14. 2018Deep Metric Learning by Online Soft Mining and Class-Aware Attentioncited by 12
  15. 2022CodeEditor: Learning to Edit Source Code with Pre-trained Modelscited by 12
  16. 2020A ground-truth dataset and classification model for detecting bots in GitHub issue and PR commentscited by 10
  17. 2023What Makes a Code Review Useful to OpenDev Developers? An Empirical Investigationcited by 10
  18. 2019Deep Variational Networks with Exponential Weighting for Learning Computed Tomographycited by 7
  19. 2024Improving the Learning of Code Review Successive Tasks with Cross-Task Knowledge Distillationcited by 7
  20. 2016A Novel Approach for Estimating Truck Factorscited by 6
  21. 2021Using a Balanced Scorecard to Identify Opportunities to Improve Code Review Effectiveness: An Industrial Experience Reportcited by 4
  22. 2023Evaluating Transfer Learning for Simplifying GitHub READMEscited by 4
  23. 2022Does This Apply to Me? An Empirical Study of Technical Context in Stack Overflowcited by 3
  24. 2019Contextual Documentation Referencing on Stack Overflowcited by 2
  25. 2023Towards Automated Classification of Code Review Feedback to Support Analyticscited by 2
  26. 2022Example Driven Code Review Explanationcited by 1
  27. 2023Demystifying Code Snippets in Code Reviews: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities and A Practitioner Surveycited by 1
  28. 2024Code Ownership: The Principles, Differences, and Their Associations with Software Qualitycited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

4 papers.