Code Review as Decision-Making -- Building a Cognitive Model from the Questions Asked During Code Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09637v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 14:04:16 GMT
• Title: Code Review as Decision-Making -- Building a Cognitive Model from the Questions Asked During Code Review
• Authors: Lo Gullstrand Heander, Emma Söderberg, Christofer Rydenfält,
• Abstract summary: We build a cognitive model of code review bottom up through thematic, statistical, temporal, and sequential analysis of the transcribed material.<n>The model shows how developers move through two phases during the code review; first an orientation phase to establish context and rationale, then an analytical phase to understand, assess, and plan the rest of the review.
• Score: 2.8299846354183953
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code review is a well-established and valued practice in the software engineering community contributing to both code quality and interpersonal benefits. However, there are challenges in both tools and processes that give rise to misalignments and frustrations. Recent research seeks to address this by automating code review entirely, but we believe that this risks losing the majority of the interpersonal benefits such as knowledge transfer and shared ownership. We believe that by better understanding the cognitive processes involved in code review, it would be possible to improve tool support, with out without AI, and make code review both more efficient, more enjoyable, while increasing or maintaining all of its benefits. In this paper, we conduct an ethnographic think-aloud study involving 10 participants and 34 code reviews. We build a cognitive model of code review bottom up through thematic, statistical, temporal, and sequential analysis of the transcribed material. Through the data, the similarities between the cognitive process in code review and decision-making processes, especially recognition-primed decision-making, become apparent. The result is the Code Review as Decision-Making (CRDM) model that shows how the developers move through two phases during the code review; first an orientation phase to establish context and rationale and then an analytical phase to understand, assess, and plan the rest of the review. Throughout the process several decisions must be taken, on writing comments, finding more information, voting, running the code locally, verifying continuous integration results, etc. Analysis software and process-coded data publicly available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15758266

Related papers

• Leveraging Reward Models for Guiding Code Review Comment Generation [13.306560805316103]
  Code review is a crucial component of modern software development, involving the evaluation of code quality, providing feedback on potential issues, and refining the code to address identified problems.<n>Deep learning techniques are able to tackle the generative aspect of code review, by commenting on a given code as a human reviewer would do.<n>In this paper, we introduce CoRAL, a deep learning framework automating review comment generation by exploiting reinforcement learning with a reward mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T21:31:38Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>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)
• Code Review Comprehension: Reviewing Strategies Seen Through Code Comprehension Theories [12.81041154115436]
  We observed and interviewed ten experienced reviewers while they performed 25 code reviews from their review queue.<n>Using Letovsky's model of code comprehension, we performed a theory-driven thematic analysis.<n>Our findings confirm that code comprehension is fundamental to code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T12:44:40Z)
• A Computational Method for Measuring "Open Codes" in Qualitative Analysis [47.358809793796624]
  Open coding is an inductive qualitative process that identifies and interprets "open codes" from datasets. We present a computational method to measure and identify potential biases from "open codes" systematically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T00:44:56Z)
• 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)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Predicting Code Review Completion Time in Modern Code Review [12.696276129130332]
  Modern Code Review (MCR) is being adopted in both open source and commercial projects as a common practice. Code reviews can experience significant delays to be completed due to various socio-technical factors. There is a lack of tool support to help developers estimating the time required to complete a code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-30T14:00:56Z)
• 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)
• A Transformer-based Approach for Source Code Summarization [86.08359401867577]
  We learn code representation for summarization by modeling the pairwise relationship between code tokens. We show that despite the approach is simple, it outperforms the state-of-the-art techniques by a significant margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T23:29:36Z)
• Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
  Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process. Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process. This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z)

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.