CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16167v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:07:31 GMT
• Title: CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Models
• Authors: Hong Yi Lin, Chunhua Liu, Haoyu Gao, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Christoph Treude,
• Abstract summary: State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive code generation capabilities but struggle with real-world software engineering tasks.<n>Code review comments are often implicit, ambiguous, and colloquial, requiring models to grasp both code and human intent.<n>This challenge calls for evaluating large language models' ability to bridge both technical and conversational contexts.
• Score: 10.108114365564926
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive code generation capabilities but struggle with real-world software engineering tasks, such as revising source code to address code reviews, hindering their practical use. Code review comments are often implicit, ambiguous, and colloquial, requiring models to grasp both code and human intent. This challenge calls for evaluating large language models' ability to bridge both technical and conversational contexts. While existing work has employed the automated code refinement (ACR) task to resolve these comments, current evaluation methods fall short, relying on text matching metrics that provide limited insight into model failures and remain susceptible to training data contamination. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel evaluation benchmark, $\textbf{CodeReviewQA}$ that enables us to conduct fine-grained assessment of model capabilities and mitigate data contamination risks. In CodeReviewQA, we decompose the generation task of code refinement into $\textbf{three essential reasoning steps}$: $\textit{change type recognition}$ (CTR), $\textit{change localisation}$ (CL), and $\textit{solution identification}$ (SI). Each step is reformulated as multiple-choice questions with varied difficulty levels, enabling precise assessment of model capabilities, while mitigating data contamination risks. Our comprehensive evaluation spans 72 recently released large language models on $\textbf{900 manually curated, high-quality examples}$ across nine programming languages. Our results show that CodeReviewQA is able to expose specific model weaknesses in code review comprehension, disentangled from their generative automated code refinement results.

Related papers

• On Explaining (Large) Language Models For Code Using Global Code-Based Explanations [45.126233498200534]
  Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) have significantly changed the landscape of software engineering (SE) We introduce code rationales (Code$Q$), a technique with rigorous mathematical underpinning, to identify subsets of tokens that can explain individual code predictions. Our evaluation demonstrates that Code$Q$ is a powerful interpretability method to explain how (less) meaningful input concepts (i.e., natural language particle at') highly impact output generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T01:00:45Z)
• 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.<n>Existing code review datasets are often noisy and unrefined, posing limitations to the learning potential of AI models.<n>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)
• Too Noisy To Learn: Enhancing Data Quality for Code Review Comment Generation [2.990411348977783]
  Open-source datasets are used to train neural models for automated code review tasks.<n>These datasets contain a significant amount of noisy comments that persist despite cleaning methods.<n>We propose a novel approach using large language models (LLMs) to further clean these datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T22:48:58Z)
• 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)
• L2CEval: Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.00201523306986]
  We present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We analyze the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition to assessing model performance, we measure confidence calibration for the models and conduct human evaluations of the output programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:00Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)
• CodeLMSec Benchmark: Systematically Evaluating and Finding Security Vulnerabilities in Black-Box Code Language Models [58.27254444280376]
  Large language models (LLMs) for automatic code generation have achieved breakthroughs in several programming tasks. Training data for these models is usually collected from the Internet (e.g., from open-source repositories) and is likely to contain faults and security vulnerabilities. This unsanitized training data can cause the language models to learn these vulnerabilities and propagate them during the code generation procedure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T11:54:07Z)
• 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)
• Python Code Generation by Asking Clarification Questions [57.63906360576212]
  In this work, we introduce a novel and more realistic setup for this task. We hypothesize that the under-specification of a natural language description can be resolved by asking clarification questions. We collect and introduce a new dataset named CodeClarQA containing pairs of natural language descriptions and code with created synthetic clarification questions and answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T22:08:36Z)
• Code Comment Inconsistency Detection with BERT and Longformer [9.378041196272878]
  Comments, or natural language descriptions of source code, are standard practice among software developers. When the code is modified without an accompanying correction to the comment, an inconsistency between the comment and code can arise. We propose two models to detect such inconsistencies in a natural language inference (NLI) context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-29T02:43:51Z)
• Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS [54.22600767666257]
  We introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Our benchmark includes 10,000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 15% of the test cases of introductory problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T17:58:42Z)
• 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)

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.