Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10959v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 07:52:50 GMT
• Title: Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generation
• Authors: Hong Yi Lin, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Christoph Treude, Michael W. Godfrey, Chunhua Liu, Wachiraphan Charoenwet,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 11.224317228559038
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision [120.40788744292739]
  We propose a two-player paradigm that separates the roles of reasoning and critique models. We first propose AutoMathCritique, an automated and scalable framework for collecting critique data. We demonstrate that the critique models consistently improve the actor's performance on difficult queries at test-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T17:11:54Z)
• Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword? [14.970843824847956]
  We run a controlled experiment with 29 experts who reviewed different programs with/without the support of an automatically generated code review. We show that reviewers consider valid most of the issues automatically identified by the LLM and that the availability of an automated review as a starting point strongly influences their behavior. The reviewers who started from an automated review identified a higher number of low-severity issues while, however, not identifying more high-severity issues as compared to a completely manual process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T09:24:01Z)
• 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)
• Improving Automated Code Reviews: Learning from Experience [12.573740138977065]
  This study investigates whether higher-quality reviews can be generated from automated code review models. We find that experience-aware oversampling can increase the correctness, level of information, and meaningfulness of reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T07:48:22Z)
• UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback [99.4633351133207]
  We present textscUltraFeedback, a large-scale, high-quality, and diversified AI feedback dataset. Our work validates the effectiveness of scaled AI feedback data in constructing strong open-source chat language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T17:40:01Z)
• ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Models [90.10436771217243]
  We propose ReCode, a comprehensive robustness evaluation benchmark for code generation models. We customize over 30 transformations specifically for code on docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format. With human annotators, we verified that over 90% of the perturbed prompts do not alter the semantic meaning of the original prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T14:11:31Z)
• CodeReviewer: Pre-Training for Automating Code Review Activities [36.40557768557425]
  This research focuses on utilizing pre-training techniques for the tasks in the code review scenario. We collect a large-scale dataset of real world code changes and code reviews from open-source projects in nine of the most popular programming languages. To better understand code diffs and reviews, we propose CodeReviewer, a pre-trained model that utilizes four pre-training tasks tailored specifically for the code review senario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-17T05:40:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.