Example Driven Code Review Explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Code reviewing is an essential part of software development to ensure software quality. However, the abundance of review tasks and the intensity of the workload for reviewers negatively impact the quality of the reviews. The short review text is often unactionable. Aims: We propose the Example Driven Review Explanation (EDRE) method to facilitate the code review process by adding additional explanations through examples. EDRE recommends similar code reviews as examples to further explain a review and help a developer to understand the received reviews with less communication overhead. Method: Through an empirical study in an industrial setting and by analyzing 3,722 Code reviews across three open-source projects, we compared five methods of data retrieval, text classification, and text recommendation. Results: EDRE using TF-IDF word embedding along with an SVM classifier can provide practical examples for each code review with 92% F-score and 90% Accuracy. Conclusions: The example-based explanation is an established method for assisting experts in explaining decisions. EDRE can accurately provide a set of context-specific examples to facilitate the code review process in software teams.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".