Improving LLM-Based Go Code Review through Issue-List Generation and Context Augmentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01859v1
• Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:11:34 GMT
• Title: Improving LLM-Based Go Code Review through Issue-List Generation and Context Augmentation
• Abstract summary: We propose an issue-list review paradigm, in which LLMs enumerate all potential issues rather than reporting only the single most important one.<n>We then compare three types of code context augmentation -- neighboring, LSP-based semantics, and IR-based similar co-change context.<n>We integrate candidates from no-context and context-enhanced generation to improve review coverage, and introduce refinement-guided pruning to keep the candidate list at a practical size.
• Score: 20.19657859180513
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have shown strong potential for automating code review, yet their practical utility depends heavily on the design of generation and context strategies. In this paper, we investigate how to improve LLM-based code review through generation strategy and contextual augmentation. We first propose an issue-list review paradigm, in which LLMs enumerate all potential issues rather than reporting only the single most important one (i.e., primary-issue review). We then systematically compare three types of code context augmentation -- neighboring, LSP-based semantics, and IR-based similar co-change context -- and study how they influence issue discovery. Finally, we integrate candidates from no-context and context-enhanced generation to improve review coverage, and introduce refinement-guided pruning to keep the candidate list at a practical size. We evaluate our approach on 1,438 Go review instances using downstream code refinement as the main metric, i.e., how often the candidate list contains at least one comment inducing the same code change as the final human revision. For comparison, we evaluate comments by CodeReviewer, a model trained specifically for review comment generation, as well as ground-truth human review comments (as a practical upper bound), under the same refinement-based evaluation. The results show that our best configuration, combining issue-list review, neighboring and similar co-change context, and candidate integration, reaches 28.00% refinement exact match, a statistically significant gain of +10.85 percentage points over primary-issue review without any additional context (17.15%), substantially outperforming CodeReviewer (15.02%) and approaching the human-oracle ceiling of 36.09%. Our refinement-guided pruning reduces the average candidate count from 7.2 to 3.1 at top-5 while retaining nearly the full benefit, making the candidate list easier to inspect.

Related papers

• SurveyReview: A Reviewer-Aligned Benchmark for Survey Evaluators [50.129606229339146]
  SurveyReview is a reviewer-aligned, multi-dimensional benchmark and dataset for survey evaluation.<n>We structure authentic peer-review reports by converting free-form comments into four-dimensional scores.<n>We release standardized train/test splits and an evaluation protocol to measure alignment between automatic evaluators and human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T16:11:46Z)
• Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code [6.183483850365225]
  We analyze 19,450 inline review comments spanning 3,177 agent-authored PRs from real-world GitHub repositories.<n>We find that while AI agents can accelerate code production, there remain gaps requiring targeted human review oversight.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T07:21:09Z)
• Reviewing the Reviewer: Elevating Peer Review Quality through LLM-Guided Feedback [75.31379834079648]
  We introduce an LLM-driven framework that decomposes reviews into argumentative segments.<n>We also release LazyReviewPlus, a dataset of 1,309 sentences labeled for lazy thinking and specificity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T20:32:18Z)
• RLPO: Residual Listwise Preference Optimization for Long-Context Review Ranking [50.709454968853954]
  Pointwise scoring is efficient but often fails to account for list-level interactions.<n>Listwise approaches can leverage global context, yet they are computationally expensive and become unstable as candidate lists grow.<n>We propose Residual Listwise Preference Optimization (RLPO), which formulates ranking as listwise representation-level residual correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T11:45:19Z)
• 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)
• LLMCup: Ranking-Enhanced Comment Updating with LLMs [8.12420131928042]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in software engineering tasks such as comment generation, code synthesis, and program repair.<n>We propose a novel comment updating framework, LLMCup, which first uses multiple prompt strategies to provide diverse candidate updated comments via an LLM, and then employs a ranking model, CupRank, to select the best candidate as final updated comment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T15:11:27Z)
• 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)
• Self-Calibrated Listwise Reranking with Large Language Models [137.6557607279876]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been employed in reranking tasks through a sequence-to-sequence approach. This reranking paradigm requires a sliding window strategy to iteratively handle larger candidate sets. We propose a novel self-calibrated listwise reranking method, which aims to leverage LLMs to produce global relevance scores for ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T10:31:31Z)
• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• 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)
• A Closer Look into Automatic Evaluation Using Large Language Models [75.49360351036773]
  We discuss how details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T12:12:55Z)

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.