Too Noisy To Learn: Enhancing Data Quality for Code Review Comment Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02757v2
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 02:19:12 GMT
• Title: Too Noisy To Learn: Enhancing Data Quality for Code Review Comment Generation
• Authors: Chunhua Liu, Hong Yi Lin, Patanamon Thongtanunam,
• Abstract summary: Open-source datasets are used to train neural models for automated code review tasks. These datasets contain a significant amount of noisy comments that persist despite cleaning methods. We propose a novel approach using large language models (LLMs) to further clean these datasets.
• Score: 2.990411348977783
• License:
• Abstract: Code review is an important practice in software development, yet it is time-consuming and requires substantial effort. While open-source datasets have been used to train neural models for automating code review tasks, including review comment generation, these datasets contain a significant amount of noisy comments (e.g., vague or non-actionable feedback) that persist despite cleaning methods using heuristics and machine learning approaches. Such remaining noise may lead models to generate low-quality review comments, yet removing them requires a complex semantic understanding of both code changes and natural language comments. In this paper, we investigate the impact of such noise on review comment generation and propose a novel approach using large language models (LLMs) to further clean these datasets. Based on an empirical study on a large-scale code review dataset, our LLM-based approach achieves 66-85% precision in detecting valid comments. Using the predicted valid comments to fine-tune the state-of-the-art code review models (cleaned models) can generate review comments that are 13.0% - 12.4% more similar to valid human-written comments than the original models. We also find that the cleaned models can generate more informative and relevant comments than the original models. Our findings underscore the critical impact of dataset quality on the performance of review comment generation. We advocate for further research into cleaning training data to enhance the practical utility and quality of automated code review.

Related papers

• Harnessing Large Language Models for Curated Code Reviews [2.5944208050492183]
  In code review, generating structured and relevant comments is crucial for identifying code issues and facilitating accurate code changes. Existing code review datasets are often noisy and unrefined, posing limitations to the learning potential of AI models. We propose a curation pipeline designed to enhance the quality of the largest publicly available code review dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:15:09Z)
• 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)
• Prompting and Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Automated Code Review Comment Generation [5.6001617185032595]
  Large language models pretrained on both programming and natural language data tend to perform well in code-oriented tasks. We fine-tune open-source Large language models (LLM) in parameter-efficient, quantized low-rank fashion on consumer-grade hardware to improve review comment generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T12:01:38Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• CodeExp: Explanatory Code Document Generation [94.43677536210465]
  Existing code-to-text generation models produce only high-level summaries of code. We conduct a human study to identify the criteria for high-quality explanatory docstring for code. We present a multi-stage fine-tuning strategy and baseline models for the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T18:05:44Z)
• Annotation Error Detection: Analyzing the Past and Present for a More Coherent Future [63.99570204416711]
  We reimplement 18 methods for detecting potential annotation errors and evaluate them on 9 English datasets. We define a uniform evaluation setup including a new formalization of the annotation error detection task. We release our datasets and implementations in an easy-to-use and open source software package.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-05T22:31:45Z)
• Few-Shot Learning for Opinion Summarization [117.70510762845338]
  Opinion summarization is the automatic creation of text reflecting subjective information expressed in multiple documents. In this work, we show that even a handful of summaries is sufficient to bootstrap generation of the summary text. Our approach substantially outperforms previous extractive and abstractive methods in automatic and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:37:38Z)
• Unsupervised Opinion Summarization with Noising and Denoising [85.49169453434554]
  We create a synthetic dataset from a corpus of user reviews by sampling a review, pretending it is a summary, and generating noisy versions thereof. At test time, the model accepts genuine reviews and generates a summary containing salient opinions, treating those that do not reach consensus as noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T16:54:57Z)

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.