Improving Code Reviewer Recommendation: Accuracy, Latency, Workload, and Bystanders

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17169v1
• Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 17:55:13 GMT
• Title: Improving Code Reviewer Recommendation: Accuracy, Latency, Workload, and Bystanders
• Authors: Peter C. Rigby, Seth Rogers, Sadruddin Saleem, Parth Suresh, Daniel Suskin, Patrick Riggs, Chandra Maddila, Nachiappan Nagappan
• Abstract summary: We build upon the recommender that has been in production since 2018 RevRecV1. We find that reviewers were being assigned based on prior authorship of files. Having an individual who is responsible for the review, reduces the time take for reviews by -11%.
• Score: 6.538051328482194
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Code review ensures that a peer engineer manually examines the code before it is integrated and released into production. At Meta, we develop a wide range of software at scale, from social networking to software development infrastructure, such as calendar and meeting tools to continuous integration. We are constantly improving our code review system, and in this work we describe a series of experiments that were conducted across 10's of thousands of engineers and 100's of thousands of reviews. We build upon the recommender that has been in production since 2018, RevRecV1. We found that reviewers were being assigned based on prior authorship of files. We reviewed the literature for successful features and experimented with them with RevRecV2 in production. The most important feature in our new model was the familiarity of the author and reviewer, we saw an overall improvement in accuracy of 14 percentage points. Prior research has shown that reviewer workload is skewed. To balance workload, we divide the reviewer score from RevRecV2 by each candidate reviewers workload. We experimented with multiple types of workload to develop RevRecWL. We find that reranking candidate reviewers by workload often leads to a reviewers with lower workload being selected by authors. The bystander effect can occur when a team of reviewers is assigned the review. We mitigate the bystander effect by randomly assigning one of the recommended reviewers. Having an individual who is responsible for the review, reduces the time take for reviews by -11%.

Related papers

• CRScore: Grounding Automated Evaluation of Code Review Comments in Code Claims and Smells [15.66562304661042]
  We develop a CRScore to measure dimensions of review quality like conciseness, comprehensiveness, and relevance. We demonstrate that CRScore can produce valid, fine-grained scores of review quality that have the greatest alignment with human judgment. We also release a corpus of 2.6k human-annotated review quality scores for machine-generated and GitHub review comments to support the development of automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T21:53:18Z)
• Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generation [11.224317228559038]
  We train deep learning models to imitate human reviewers in providing natural language code reviews. 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. We propose a suite of experience-aware training methods that utilise the reviewers' past authoring and reviewing experiences as signals for review quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T07:52:50Z)
• Factoring Expertise, Workload, and Turnover into Code Review Recommendation [4.492444446637857]
  We show that code review natural spreads knowledge thereby reducing the files at risk to turnover. We develop novel recommenders to understand their impact on the level of expertise during review. We are able to globally increase expertise during reviews, +3%, reduce workload concentration, -12%, and reduce the files at risk, -28%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T18:58:06Z)
• Using Large-scale Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning for Code Review Recommendations [7.260832843615661]
  We present CORAL, a novel approach to reviewer recommendation. We use a socio-technical graph built from the rich set of entities. We show that CORAL is able to model the manual history of reviewer selection remarkably well.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-04T20:58:54Z)
• Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
  We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores. We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z)
• ProtoTransformer: A Meta-Learning Approach to Providing Student Feedback [54.142719510638614]
  In this paper, we frame the problem of providing feedback as few-shot classification. A meta-learner adapts to give feedback to student code on a new programming question from just a few examples by instructors. Our approach was successfully deployed to deliver feedback to 16,000 student exam-solutions in a programming course offered by a tier 1 university.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-23T22:41:28Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)
• Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer Review [35.24369486197371]
  Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review. Several conferences have started encouraging or even requiring authors to declare the previous submission history of their papers. We investigate whether reviewers exhibit a bias caused by the knowledge that the submission under review was previously rejected at a similar venue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-30T09:35:37Z)
• ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesis [62.76038841302741]
  We build a novel ReviewRobot to automatically assign a review score and write comments for multiple categories such as novelty and meaningful comparison. Experimental results show that our review score predictor reaches 71.4%-100% accuracy. Human assessment by domain experts shows that 41.7%-70.5% of the comments generated by ReviewRobot are valid and constructive, and better than human-written ones for 20% of the time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T02:17:58Z)
• Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
  Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process. Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process. This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z)
• Automating App Review Response Generation [67.58267006314415]
  We propose a novel approach RRGen that automatically generates review responses by learning knowledge relations between reviews and their responses. Experiments on 58 apps and 309,246 review-response pairs highlight that RRGen outperforms the baselines by at least 67.4% in terms of BLEU-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T05:23:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.