Hold On! Is My Feedback Useful? Evaluating the Usefulness of Code Review Comments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06738v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 07:22:13 GMT
• Title: Hold On! Is My Feedback Useful? Evaluating the Usefulness of Code Review Comments
• Authors: Sharif Ahmed, Nasir U. Eisty,
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates the usefulness of Code Review Comments (CR comments) through textual feature-based and featureless approaches.<n>Our models outperform the baseline by achieving state-of-the-art performance.<n>Our analyses portray the similarities and differences of domains, projects, datasets, models, and features for predicting the usefulness of CR comments.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Context: In collaborative software development, the peer code review process proves beneficial only when the reviewers provide useful comments. Objective: This paper investigates the usefulness of Code Review Comments (CR comments) through textual feature-based and featureless approaches. Method: We select three available datasets from both open-source and commercial projects. Additionally, we introduce new features from software and non-software domains. Moreover, we experiment with the presence of jargon, voice, and codes in CR comments and classify the usefulness of CR comments through featurization, bag-of-words, and transfer learning techniques. Results: Our models outperform the baseline by achieving state-of-the-art performance. Furthermore, the result demonstrates that the commercial gigantic LLM, GPT-4o, or non-commercial naive featureless approach, Bag-of-Word with TF-IDF, is more effective for predicting the usefulness of CR comments. Conclusion: The significant improvement in predicting usefulness solely from CR comments escalates research on this task. Our analyses portray the similarities and differences of domains, projects, datasets, models, and features for predicting the usefulness of CR comments.

Related papers

• CPR: Leveraging LLMs for Topic and Phrase Suggestion to Facilitate Comprehensive Product Reviews [0.5249805590164902]
  This paper presents CPR, a novel methodology to guide users in crafting insightful and well-rounded reviews. Our approach employs a three-stage process: first, we present users with product-specific terms for rating; second, we generate targeted phrase suggestions based on these ratings. We evaluate CPR using text-to-text LLMs, comparing its performance against real-world customer reviews from Walmart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T17:11:38Z)
• LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviews [74.87393214734114]
  This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T10:07:33Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving fine-grained aspects from a corpus of peer reviews. We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• RealCritic: Towards Effectiveness-Driven Evaluation of Language Model Critiques [59.861013614500024]
  We introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:48:10Z)
• Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions [62.0123588983514]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields. We reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T08:24:17Z)
• CELA: Cost-Efficient Language Model Alignment for CTR Prediction [70.65910069412944]
  Click-Through Rate (CTR) prediction holds a paramount position in recommender systems.<n>Recent efforts have sought to mitigate these challenges by integrating Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs)<n>We propose textbfCost-textbfEfficient textbfLanguage Model textbfAlignment (textbfCELA) for CTR prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T07:43:25Z)
• Automating Patch Set Generation from Code Review Comments Using Large Language Models [2.045040820541428]
  We provide code contexts to five popular Large Language Models (LLMs) We obtain the suggested code-changes (patch sets) derived from real-world code-review comments. The performance of each model is meticulously assessed by comparing their generated patch sets against the historical data of human-generated patch-sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T02:46:08Z)
• Team-related Features in Code Review Prediction Models [10.576931077314887]
  We evaluate the prediction power of features related to code ownership, workload, and team relationship. Our results show that, individually, features related to code ownership have the best prediction power. We conclude that all proposed features together with lines of code can make the best predictions for both reviewer participation and amount of feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T09:30:09Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• Towards Automated Classification of Code Review Feedback to Support Analytics [4.423428708304586]
  This study aims to develop an automated code review comment classification system. We trained and evaluated supervised learning-based DNN models leveraging code context, comment text, and a set of code metrics. Our approach outperforms Fregnan et al.'s approach by achieving 18.7% higher accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T21:53:20Z)
• 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)
• Rethinking the Evaluation for Conversational Recommendation in the Era of Large Language Models [115.7508325840751]
  The recent success of large language models (LLMs) has shown great potential to develop more powerful conversational recommender systems (CRSs) In this paper, we embark on an investigation into the utilization of ChatGPT for conversational recommendation, revealing the inadequacy of the existing evaluation protocol. We propose an interactive Evaluation approach based on LLMs named iEvaLM that harnesses LLM-based user simulators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:12:43Z)
• What Makes a Code Review Useful to OpenDev Developers? An Empirical Investigation [4.061135251278187]
  Even a minor improvement in the effectiveness of Code Reviews can incur significant savings for a software development organization. This study aims to develop a finer grain understanding of what makes a code review comment useful to OSS developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T22:48:27Z)

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.