Convergent contemporary software peer review practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software peer review is practiced on a diverse set of software projects that have drastically different settings, cultures, incentive systems, and time pressures. In an effort to characterize and understand these differences we examine two Google-led projects, Android and Chromium OS, three Microsoft projects, Bing, Office, and MS SQL, and projects internal to AMD. We contrast our findings with data taken from traditional software inspection conducted on a Lucent project and from open source software peer review on six projects, including Apache, Linux, and KDE. Our measures of interest include the review interval, the number of developers involved in review, and proxy measures for the number of defects found during review. We find that despite differences among projects, many of the characteristics of the review process have independently converged to similar values which we think indicate general principles of code review practice. We also introduce a measure of the degree to which knowledge is shared during review. This is an aspect of review practice that has traditionally only had experiential support. Our knowledge sharing measure shows that conducting peer review increases the number of distinct files a developer knows about by 66% to 150% depending on the project. This paper is one of the first studies of contemporary review in software firms and the most diverse study of peer review to date.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".