From Generic to Personalized: Exploring Persona-Aware Code Review Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08990v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 23:33:01 GMT
• Title: From Generic to Personalized: Exploring Persona-Aware Code Review Explanations
• Abstract summary: We explore the potential of personified code review explanations.<n>Our results suggest that preferences for explanation styles vary across problem-solving styles, experience levels, and roles.<n>Based on these findings, we outline a vision for inclusive, human-centered AI-assisted code review systems.
• Score: 9.60671538959012
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code review is essential for ensuring software quality and supporting collaboration, yet prior work shows that developers can interpret code review comments differently. These differences can hinder effective communication, particularly in collaborative settings. To address this challenge, we explore the potential of personified code review explanations. We report initial findings from an ongoing mixed-methods user study in which developers evaluated persona-aligned review comments across multiple code snippets. Our results suggest that preferences for explanation styles vary across problem-solving styles, experience levels, and roles. Across problem-solving style profiles, developers valued explanatory depth, learning support, practical suggestions, and risk awareness over conciseness, highlighting the need to balance personalization with clarity and trust. Based on these findings, we outline a vision for inclusive, human-centered AI-assisted code review systems that adapt feedback to developers' problem-solving preferences.

Related papers

• An Eye for Trust: An Exploration of Developers' Trust Perceptions Through Urgency and Reputation [1.6332728502735252]
  This study explores how urgency and reputation influence developers' perceptions of code trustworthiness.<n>Our research revealed that the priority assigned to a code patch significantly influenced developers' code review behavior.<n>Despite noticeable changes in code review behavior, our participants surprisingly overlooked the substantial influence of urgency and reputation on their decisions to review and reuse code changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T19:05:27Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [59.02879434536289]
  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)
• 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)
• Towards debiasing code review support [1.188383832081829]
  This paper explores harmful cases caused by cognitive biases during code review. In particular, we design prototypes covering confirmation bias and decision fatigue. We show that some techniques could be implemented in existing code review tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T15:58:14Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• Demystifying Code Snippets in Code Reviews: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities and A Practitioner Survey [6.091233191627442]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study to mine information and knowledge related to code snippets in code reviews. The study results highlight that reviewers can provide code snippets in appropriate scenarios to meet developers' specific information needs in code reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-26T17:49:19Z)
• Exploring the Advances in Identifying Useful Code Review Comments [0.0]
  This paper reflects the evolution of research on the usefulness of code review comments. It examines papers that define the usefulness of code review comments, mine and annotate datasets, study developers' perceptions, analyze factors from different aspects, and use machine learning classifiers to automatically predict the usefulness of code review comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T00:41:20Z)
• 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)
• 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.