From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29516v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 15:17:25 GMT
• Title: From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale
• Abstract summary: ARCTIC is an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, drift detection, and code spotlight.<n>In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.
• Score: 2.8980676513012846
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggestions such as style and best practices while under-indexing on the concerns human reviewers prioritize most: correctness, security, and performance. We present ARCTIC, an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, which infers why a change was made from conversation logs and metadata; drift detection, which measures divergence between the developer's intent and the agent's output via backtranslation; and code spotlight, which ranks the regions of a diff most warranting human scrutiny. We ground these capabilities in a six-theme taxonomy derived from 18,000 code reviews. Offline evaluation shows that intent prediction achieves 0.86 F1, drift detection reaches near-perfect ordinal agreement with human annotators (QWK = 0.907), and spotlight outperforms the baseline AI reviewer by 2.4x on quality estimation at 5x fewer tokens. In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.

Related papers

• Beyond Lexical Metrics: Sentence-Embedding Detection of Reviewer Habituation in AI Code Review [2.9152186617858304]
  We study 11,429 reviews paired with 10,104 human-authored inline comments from AI.<n>Approval rates rise from 30.5% in reviewers' early periods to 36.6% in late periods.<n>Four hand-crafted linguistic features - lexical diversity, Shannon entropy, technical specificity, and constructive actionability - show no monotonic decline across exposure deciles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-05T18:15:18Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• The Red Queen Gödel Machine: Co-Evolving Agents and Their Evaluators [17.44053709945519]
  Self-improving agents are state-of-the-art (SOTA) on agentic coding benchmarks and have recently been extended to general domains.<n>We introduce the Red Queen Godel Machine (RQGM), an evolutionary framework for self-improvement under non-stationary utilities.<n>We show that the RQGM improves test pass rate over the prior SOTA by adding a complementary agent-as-a-judge code-review signal.<n>We then turn to scientific paper writing and reviewing, and Olympiad-level proof writing and grading, where the RQGM improves performance over prior self-improving agents
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T18:38:26Z)
• When is Your LLM Steerable? [56.656180566692946]
  Activation steering offers a lightweight approach to control language models' behavior at inference time.<n>Finding the regime and boundaries of successful steering typically requires expensive grid searches.<n>We investigate whether steerability can be predicted from the model's internal states at the beginning of the generation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T02:55:34Z)
• Automating Low-Risk Code Review at Meta: RADAR, Risk Calibration, and Review Efficiency [10.379265985245537]
  At Meta, significant lines of code per human-landed diff grew by 105.9% year over year.<n>Per-developer diff volume rose 51%, with agentic AI responsible for over 80% of that growth.<n>We ask three questions that progress from feasibility through calibration to impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T16:44:07Z)
• 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)
• Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze 33,707 agent-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset across 2,807 repositories.<n>We propose a Circuit Breaker triage model that predicts high-review-effort PRs at creation time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-02T17:18:01Z)
• 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)
• Rethinking Metrics and Benchmarks of Video Anomaly Detection [58.37571339811799]
  Video Anomaly Detection (VAD) aims to detect anomalies that deviate from expectation.<n>Existing VAD metrics are influenced by single annotation bias.<n>Existing benchmarks lack the capability to evaluate scene overfitting of fully/weakly-supervised algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T08:09:42Z)
• 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)
• Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning [61.523627290397556]
  We introduce a stepwise self-evaluation mechanism to guide and calibrate the reasoning process of Large Language Model (LLM) We propose a decoding algorithm integrating the self-evaluation guidance via beam search. Our approach surpasses the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines in few-shot accuracy by $6.34%$, $9.56%$, and $5.46%$ on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T02:37:59Z)
• ScoreGAN: A Fraud Review Detector based on Multi Task Learning of Regulated GAN with Data Augmentation [50.779498955162644]
  We propose ScoreGAN for fraud review detection that makes use of both review text and review rating scores in the generation and detection process. Results show that the proposed framework outperformed the existing state-of-the-art framework, namely FakeGAN, in terms of AP by 7%, and 5% on the Yelp and TripAdvisor datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T16:15:06Z)

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.