From Static to Dynamic: Benchmarking Real-World Code Review with MCR-Bench
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In real-world software development, code review typically involves iterative interactions between developers and reviewers to improve software quality, making the process costly and time-consuming. Although recent work explores large language models (LLMs) for automated code review, most approaches oversimplify code review into a single-round, static decision task, which fails to capture the multi-round interactive nature and the complex problem-solving processes inherent in realistic review scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MCR-Bench, the first defect state-aware benchmark designed for realistic multi-round code review. MCR-Bench covers five commonly-used programming languages and consists of 2,269 real-world multi-round code review tasks, each of which is annotated with fine-grained defect information and cross-round state labels. Each task in MCR-Bench is equipped with fine-grained defect metadata (e.g., description, type, severity) alongside dynamic state annotations, capturing the complete evolutionary trajectory of a defect throughout the multi-round process. We obtain several findings through extensive experiments on MCR-Bench with mainstream LLMs. (1) Limited overall capability: experiments reveal that mainstream LLMs exhibit limited overall performance in defect detection and defect lifecycle state tracking, with performance degrading significantly as the number of interaction rounds increases; (2) Defect-sensitive performance: LLMs' performance varies substantially across different defect types and severity levels, with semantically complex or low-salience defects being significantly more likely to be missed; (3) Underlying Failure Mechanisms: our in-depth error analysis dissects the distinct drivers of false positives and false negatives, revealing critical weaknesses such as cross-round temporal misalignment and inadequate long-range memory.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Aug 2026.
Builds on
34 of 75 references.
References · 34
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 919
- 2024StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generationcited by 502
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
- 2023Towards an Understanding of Large Language Models in Software Engineering Taskscited by 68
- 2023A Survey of Large Language Models for Code: Evolution, Benchmarking, and Future Trendscited by 66
- 2022Using Pre-Trained Models to Boost Code Review Automationcited by 63
- 2021Towards Automating Code Review Activitiescited by 54
- 2024Can LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts?cited by 42
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Reviewcited by 34
22 more
- 2024HumanEvo: An Evolution-aware Benchmark for More Realistic Evaluation of Repository-level Code Generationcited by 28
- 2025BitsAI-CR: Automated Code Review via LLM in Practicecited by 22
- 2024Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Artcited by 20
- 2024Top General Performance = Top Domain Performance? DomainCodeBench: A Multi-domain Code Generation Benchmarkcited by 13
- 2023What Makes a Code Review Useful to OpenDev Developers? An Empirical Investigationcited by 10
- 2025Towards an Understanding of Context Utilization in Code Intelligencecited by 10
- 2025Large Language Models are Qualified Benchmark Builders: Rebuilding Pre-Training Datasets for Advancing Code Intelligence Taskscited by 6
- 2025Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Comment Generationcited by 6
- 2025SWR-Bench: Assessing LLM Performance in Real-World Code Review Comment Generationcited by 6
- 2023Toward Effective Secure Code Reviews: An Empirical Study of Security-Related Coding Weaknessescited by 5
- 2025CodeFuse-CR-Bench: A Comprehensiveness-aware Benchmark for End-to-End Code Review Evaluation in Python Projectscited by 5
- 2025iCodeReviewer: Improving Secure Code Review with Mixture of Promptscited by 5
- 2025SecureReviewer: Enhancing Large Language Models for Secure Code Review through Secure-aware Fine-tuningcited by 5
- 2026AACR-Bench: Evaluating Automatic Code Review with Holistic Repository-Level Contextcited by 5
- 2026RepoReasoner: Evaluating Repository-Level Code Reasoning Ability of Long-Context Language Modelscited by 5
- 2024Understanding Practitioners' Expectations on Clear Code Review Commentscited by 4
- 2025Deep Assessment of Code Review Generation Approaches: Beyond Lexical Similaritycited by 4
- 2025Issue-Oriented Agent-Based Framework for Automated Review Comment Generationcited by 4
- 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026Sphinx: Benchmarking and Modeling for LLM-Driven Pull Request Reviewcited by 3
- 2025ReleaseEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Language Models in Automated Release Note Generationcited by 2
- 2025When More Retrieval Hurts: Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Generationcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.