Automating Code Review: A Systematic Literature Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09510v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:19:10 GMT
• Title: Automating Code Review: A Systematic Literature Review
• Authors: Rosalia Tufano, Gabriele Bavota,
• Abstract summary: Code Review consists in assessing the code written by teammates with the goal of increasing code quality.<n> Empirical studies documented the benefits brought by such a practice that, however, has its cost to pay in terms of developers' time.<n>Researchers have proposed techniques and tools to automate code review tasks.
• Score: 15.416725497289697
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Code Review consists in assessing the code written by teammates with the goal of increasing code quality. Empirical studies documented the benefits brought by such a practice that, however, has its cost to pay in terms of developers' time. For this reason, researchers have proposed techniques and tools to automate code review tasks such as the reviewers selection (i.e., identifying suitable reviewers for a given code change) or the actual review of a given change (i.e., recommending improvements to the contributor as a human reviewer would do). Given the substantial amount of papers recently published on the topic, it may be challenging for researchers and practitioners to get a complete overview of the state-of-the-art. We present a systematic literature review (SLR) featuring 119 papers concerning the automation of code review tasks. We provide: (i) a categorization of the code review tasks automated in the literature; (ii) an overview of the under-the-hood techniques used for the automation, including the datasets used for training data-driven techniques; (iii) publicly available techniques and datasets used for their evaluation, with a description of the evaluation metrics usually adopted for each task. The SLR is concluded by a discussion of the current limitations of the state-of-the-art, with insights for future research directions.

Related papers

• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Serve as Evaluators for Code Summarization? [47.21347974031545]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) serve as effective evaluators for code summarization methods. LLMs prompt an agent to play diverse roles, such as code reviewer, code author, code editor, and system analyst. CODERPE achieves an 81.59% Spearman correlation with human evaluations, outperforming the existing BERTScore metric by 17.27%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T09:56:18Z)
• Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisions [62.12545440385489]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought substantial advancements in text generation, but their potential for enhancing classification tasks remains underexplored. We propose a framework for thoroughly investigating fine-tuning LLMs for classification, including both generation- and encoding-based approaches. We instantiate this framework in edit intent classification (EIC), a challenging and underexplored classification task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T20:48:28Z)
• 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)
• Re3: A Holistic Framework and Dataset for Modeling Collaborative Document Revision [62.12545440385489]
  We introduce Re3, a framework for joint analysis of collaborative document revision. We present Re3-Sci, a large corpus of aligned scientific paper revisions manually labeled according to their action and intent. We use the new data to provide first empirical insights into collaborative document revision in the academic domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T21:19:09Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• 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)
• Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Art [14.313783664862923]
  Three code review automation techniques tend to succeed or fail in two tasks described in this paper. The study has a strong qualitative focus, with 105 man-hours of manual inspection invested in analyzing correct and wrong predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T13:00:18Z)
• Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review [7.776434991976473]
  Most papers assess the correctness of assignments in object-oriented languages. Few tools assess the maintainability, readability or documentation of the source code. Most tools offered fully automated assessment to allow for near-instantaneous feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T17:54:50Z)
• NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review [58.71736531356398]
  We introduce NLPeer -- the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues. We augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information. Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T12:29:38Z)
• A Systematic Literature Review of Automated ICD Coding and Classification Systems using Discharge Summaries [5.156484100374058]
  Codification of free-text clinical narratives has long been recognised to be beneficial for secondary uses such as funding, insurance claim processing and research. The current scenario of assigning codes is a manual process which is very expensive, time-consuming and error prone. This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive overview of automated clinical coding systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T03:55:17Z)
• Hierarchical Bi-Directional Self-Attention Networks for Paper Review Rating Recommendation [81.55533657694016]
  We propose a Hierarchical bi-directional self-attention Network framework (HabNet) for paper review rating prediction and recommendation. Specifically, we leverage the hierarchical structure of the paper reviews with three levels of encoders: sentence encoder (level one), intra-review encoder (level two) and inter-review encoder (level three) We are able to identify useful predictors to make the final acceptance decision, as well as to help discover the inconsistency between numerical review ratings and text sentiment conveyed by reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T08:07:50Z)

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.