AACR-Bench: Evaluating Automatic Code Review with Holistic Repository-Level Context

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19494v2
• Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:05:14 GMT
• Title: AACR-Bench: Evaluating Automatic Code Review with Holistic Repository-Level Context
• Authors: Lei Zhang, Yongda Yu, Minghui Yu, Xinxin Guo, Zhengqi Zhuang, Guoping Rong, Dong Shao, Haifeng Shen, Hongyu Kuang, Zhengfeng Li, Boge Wang, Guoan Zhang, Bangyu Xiang, Xiaobin Xu,
• Abstract summary: AACR-Bench is a comprehensive benchmark that provides full cross-file context across multiple programming languages.<n>Unlike traditional datasets, AACR-Bench employs an "AI-assisted, Expert-verified" annotation pipeline to uncover latent defects.
• Score: 10.769682566098695
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: High-quality evaluation benchmarks are pivotal for deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in Automated Code Review (ACR). However, existing benchmarks suffer from two critical limitations: first, the lack of multi-language support in repository-level contexts, which restricts the generalizability of evaluation results; second, the reliance on noisy, incomplete ground truth derived from raw Pull Request (PR) comments, which constrains the scope of issue detection. To address these challenges, we introduce AACR-Bench a comprehensive benchmark that provides full cross-file context across multiple programming languages. Unlike traditional datasets, AACR-Bench employs an "AI-assisted, Expert-verified" annotation pipeline to uncover latent defects often overlooked in original PRs, resulting in a 285% increase in defect coverage. Extensive evaluations of mainstream LLMs on AACR-Bench reveal that previous assessments may have either misjudged or only partially captured model capabilities due to data limitations. Our work establishes a more rigorous standard for ACR evaluation and offers new insights on LLM based ACR, i.e., the granularity/level of context and the choice of retrieval methods significantly impact ACR performance, and this influence varies depending on the LLM, programming language, and the LLM usage paradigm e.g., whether an Agent architecture is employed. The code, data, and other artifacts of our evaluation set are available at https://github.com/alibaba/aacr-bench .

Related papers

• PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review [54.141490756509306]
  We introduce PaperAudit-Bench, which consists of two components: PaperAudit-Dataset, an error dataset, and PaperAudit-Review, an automated review framework.<n>Experiments on PaperAudit-Bench reveal large variability in error detectability across models and detection depths.<n>We show that the dataset supports training lightweight LLM detectors via SFT and RL, enabling effective error detection at reduced computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T04:26:12Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs for Fine-Grained Code Review with Enriched Context in Practice [18.222990693059756]
  ContextCRBench is a benchmark for fine-grained LLM evaluation in code review.<n>It collects 153.7K issues and pull requests from top-tier repositories.<n>It supports three evaluation scenarios aligned with the review workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T12:06:35Z)
• RAG-IGBench: Innovative Evaluation for RAG-based Interleaved Generation in Open-domain Question Answering [50.42577862494645]
  We present RAG-IGBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the task of Interleaved Generation based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG-IG) in open-domain question answering.<n>RAG-IG integrates multimodal large language models (MLLMs) with retrieval mechanisms, enabling the models to access external image-text information for generating coherent multimodal content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T03:06:39Z)
• Influence Guided Context Selection for Effective Retrieval-Augmented Generation [23.188397777606095]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses large language model (LLM) hallucinations by grounding responses in external knowledge.<n>Existing approaches attempt to improve performance through context selection based on predefined context quality assessment metrics.<n>We reconceptualize context quality assessment as an inference-time data valuation problem and introduce the Contextual Influence Value (CI value)<n>This novel metric quantifies context quality by measuring the performance degradation when removing each context from the list.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T07:19:09Z)
• CodeFuse-CR-Bench: A Comprehensiveness-aware Benchmark for End-to-End Code Review Evaluation in Python Projects [23.9752442213364]
  We introduce CodeFuse-CR-Bench, the first comprehensiveness-aware benchmark for repository-level CR evaluation.<n>CodeFuse-CR-Bench comprises 601 high-quality instances from 70 Python projects covering nine Pull-Request (PR) problem domains.<n>We present the first large-scale assessment of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) on this comprehensive CR task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T11:24:09Z)
• Benchmarking and Studying the LLM-based Code Review [34.93646390349726]
  Current benchmarks frequently focus on fine-grained code units, lack complete project context, and use inadequate evaluation metrics.<n>We introduce SWRBench, a new benchmark offering PR-centric review with full project context.<n>Our contributions include the SWRBench benchmark, its objective evaluation method, a comprehensive study of current ACR capabilities, and an effective enhancement approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T14:13:34Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• 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)<n>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)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability.<n>Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum.<n>We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [66.93260816493553]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios.<n>With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics: Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance.<n> Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)

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.