Papers › Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword?

Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword?

18 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.11401links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Rosalia Tufano, Alberto Martin-Lopez, Ahmad Tayeb, Ozren Dabić, Sonia Haiduc, Gabriele Bavota

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Several techniques have been proposed to automate code review. Early support consisted in recommending the most suited reviewer for a given change or in prioritizing the review tasks. With the advent of deep learning in software engineering, the level of automation has been pushed to new heights, with approaches able to provide feedback on source code in natural language as a human reviewer would do. Also, recent work documented open source projects adopting Large Language Models (LLMs) as co-reviewers. Although the research in this field is very active, little is known about the actual impact of including automatically generated code reviews in the code review process. While there are many aspects worth investigating, in this work we focus on three of them: (i) review quality, i.e., the reviewer's ability to identify issues in the code; (ii) review cost, i.e., the time spent reviewing the code; and (iii) reviewer's confidence, i.e., how confident is the reviewer about the provided feedback. We run a controlled experiment with 29 experts who reviewed different programs with/without the support of an automatically generated code review. During the experiment we monitored the reviewers' activities, for over 50 hours of recorded code reviews. We show that reviewers consider valid most of the issues automatically identified by the LLM and that the availability of an automated review as a starting point strongly influences their behavior: Reviewers tend to focus on the code locations indicated by the LLM rather than searching for additional issues in other parts of the code. The reviewers who started from an automated review identified a higher number of low-severity issues while, however, not identifying more high-severity issues as compared to a completely manual process. Finally, the automated support did not result in saved time and did not increase the reviewers' confidence.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 8 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from codereviewexperiment/code_review_controlled_experiment. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections