Evaluating the Impact of Explainable AI on Trust in AI-Assisted Code Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24601v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 16:04:24 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Impact of Explainable AI on Trust in AI-Assisted Code Review
• Abstract summary: We studied the influence of Explainable AI (XAI) on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews.<n>We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken.
• Score: 3.08933193053743
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

Related papers

• Code Review is a Conversation: Toward Conversational AI Review Assistants [7.335667281862373]
  We argue for conversational AI review assistants that participate in code review as interactive partners rather than static comment generators.<n>Such assistants should identify when conversation is needed, ask grounded questions, respond to developer explanations, summarize unresolved issues, help capture rationale, and know when to abstain or escalate to human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T08:44:05Z)
• From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality [3.7086626614863984]
  We study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras.<n>Agent-involved collaboration patterns are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption.<n>These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T18:48:20Z)
• Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review [2.2807488730605296]
  We present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality.<n>We identify major open challenges for responsible adoption, including reliability, bias, privacy, automation bias, transparency, and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T17:04:21Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review [3.7086626614863984]
  We compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents.<n>Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code.<n>Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T20:56:18Z)
• 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)
• Code Review as Decision-Making -- Building a Cognitive Model from the Questions Asked During Code Review [2.8299846354183953]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T14:04:16Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)

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.