Integrating Visual Aids to Enhance the Code Reviewer Selection Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern Code Review (MCR) is an integral part of a software development strategy that accelerates product quality by identifying defects, code smells, and other harmful practices. However, assigning appropriate reviewers to evaluate changed code during the review process remains challenging. While automated tools for reviewer assignments have limited impact in practice, the process often relies on manual investigation of project histories to retrieve knowledge of team members and their activities. Therefore, in this study, we present an approach to automatically assemble developers’ information and visualize it meaningfully, which helps to choose appropriate reviewers. First, we propose three metrics that measure developers’ collaboration, reviewers’ expertise, and reviewers’ workload and visualize them through networks. Second, we perform a case study of three popular open-source projects, where we compute and visualize each developers’ information according to the proposed metrics. Finally, we conducted two online surveys to assess the developers’ perceptions of the proposed visual benefits. The results show that the proposed method can assist in identifying relevant reviewers and be immensely helpful to new developers. Additionally, survey respondents expressed reliance on the efficacy of the visual aids in workload balancing and reducing review time.
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 | 0.022 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".