Towards debiasing code review support

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01407v1
• Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 15:58:14 GMT
• Title: Towards debiasing code review support
• Authors: Tobias Jetzen, Xavier Devroey, Nicolas Matton, Benoît Vanderose,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores harmful cases caused by cognitive biases during code review. In particular, we design prototypes covering confirmation bias and decision fatigue. We show that some techniques could be implemented in existing code review tools.
• Score: 1.188383832081829
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Cognitive biases appear during code review. They significantly impact the creation of feedback and how it is interpreted by developers. These biases can lead to illogical reasoning and decision-making, violating one of the main hypotheses supporting code review: developers' accurate and objective code evaluation. This paper explores harmful cases caused by cognitive biases during code review and potential solutions to avoid such cases or mitigate their effects. In particular, we design several prototypes covering confirmation bias and decision fatigue. We rely on a developer-centered design approach by conducting usability tests and validating the prototype with a user experience questionnaire (UEQ) and participants' feedback. We show that some techniques could be implemented in existing code review tools as they are well accepted by reviewers and help prevent behavior detrimental to code review. This work provides a solid first approach to treating cognitive bias in code review.

Related papers

• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• Predicting Expert Evaluations in Software Code Reviews [8.012861163935904]
  This paper presents an algorithmic model that automates aspects of code review typically avoided due to their complexity or subjectivity. Instead of replacing manual reviews, our model adds insights that help reviewers focus on more impactful tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T16:01:52Z)
• 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)
• Demystifying Code Snippets in Code Reviews: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities and A Practitioner Survey [6.091233191627442]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study to mine information and knowledge related to code snippets in code reviews. The study results highlight that reviewers can provide code snippets in appropriate scenarios to meet developers' specific information needs in code reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-26T17:49:19Z)
• Exploring the Advances in Identifying Useful Code Review Comments [0.0]
  This paper reflects the evolution of research on the usefulness of code review comments. It examines papers that define the usefulness of code review comments, mine and annotate datasets, study developers' perceptions, analyze factors from different aspects, and use machine learning classifiers to automatically predict the usefulness of code review comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T00:41:20Z)
• Debiasing Recommendation by Learning Identifiable Latent Confounders [49.16119112336605]
  Confounding bias arises due to the presence of unmeasured variables that can affect both a user's exposure and feedback. Existing methods either (1) make untenable assumptions about these unmeasured variables or (2) directly infer latent confounders from users' exposure. We propose a novel method, i.e., identifiable deconfounder (iDCF), which leverages a set of proxy variables to resolve the aforementioned non-identification issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T05:10:26Z)
• Predicting Code Review Completion Time in Modern Code Review [12.696276129130332]
  Modern Code Review (MCR) is being adopted in both open source and commercial projects as a common practice. Code reviews can experience significant delays to be completed due to various socio-technical factors. There is a lack of tool support to help developers estimating the time required to complete a code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-30T14:00:56Z)
• SIFN: A Sentiment-aware Interactive Fusion Network for Review-based Item Recommendation [48.1799451277808]
  We propose a Sentiment-aware Interactive Fusion Network (SIFN) for review-based item recommendation. We first encode user/item reviews via BERT and propose a light-weighted sentiment learner to extract semantic features of each review. Then, we propose a sentiment prediction task that guides the sentiment learner to extract sentiment-aware features via explicit sentiment labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-18T08:04:38Z)
• Deep Just-In-Time Inconsistency Detection Between Comments and Source Code [51.00904399653609]
  In this paper, we aim to detect whether a comment becomes inconsistent as a result of changes to the corresponding body of code. We develop a deep-learning approach that learns to correlate a comment with code changes. We show the usefulness of our approach by combining it with a comment update model to build a more comprehensive automatic comment maintenance system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T16:49:28Z)
• 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.