Improving the Learning of Code Review Successive Tasks with Cross-Task Knowledge Distillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code review is a fundamental process in software development that plays a pivotal role in ensuring code quality and reducing the likelihood of errors and bugs. However, code review can be complex, subjective, and time-consuming. Quality estimation , comment generation , and code refinement constitute the three key tasks of this process, and their automation has traditionally been addressed separately in the literature using different approaches. In particular, recent efforts have focused on fine-tuning pre-trained language models to aid in code review tasks, with each task being considered in isolation. We believe that these tasks are interconnected, and their fine-tuning should consider this interconnection. In this paper, we introduce a novel deep-learning architecture, named DISCOREV, which employs cross-task knowledge distillation to address these tasks simultaneously. In our approach, we utilize a cascade of models to enhance both comment generation and code refinement models. The fine-tuning of the comment generation model is guided by the code refinement model, while the fine-tuning of the code refinement model is guided by the quality estimation model. We implement this guidance using two strategies: a feedback-based learning objective and an embedding alignment objective. We evaluate DISCOREV by comparing it to state-of-the-art methods based on independent training and fine-tuning. Our results show that our approach generates better review comments, as measured by the BLEU score, as well as more accurate code refinement according to the CodeBLEU score.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".