arXiv:2607. 24601v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand.
arXiv:2601. 19072v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in code review automation, such as review comment generation, yet they suffer from hallucinations -- where the generated review comments are ungrounded in the actual code -- poses a significant challenge to the adoption of LLMs in code review workflows.
arXiv:2605. 17548v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process.
arXiv:2607. 29516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review.
arXiv:2607. 03316v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice.
XAI-Arena proposes using large language models (LLMs) as judges to evaluate the quality of explainable AI (XAI) explanations, aiming for reproducibility, scalability, and multidimensional assessment. The framework assesses dimensions such as simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability across different datasets, models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive correlation between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho = .693, p < .001), supporting the viability of LLM-based evaluations.
arXiv:2411.08881v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-based systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs), impact millions by supporting diverse tasks but face issues like misinformation, bi...
arXiv:2609.37216v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can generate plausible code-review comments, but such comments may contain technically incorrect claims that mislead developers...
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.
The paper presents a taxonomy-driven framework for identifying, categorizing, and explaining bias in AI-generated Python code. By extending an existing dataset and manually annotating bias categories and justifications, the authors evaluate both proprietary and open-source large language models (LLMs) for automated bias detection and explanation. Results show that models such as Gemini and Qwen3-coder achieve high classification accuracy and produce justification and code identification similarities that closely match human-authored reasoning.
arXiv:2604. 01114v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools.
arXiv:2607. 07980v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built.
The study evaluates Vibe Coding, an AI‑led conversational programming paradigm that lets developers generate software via natural‑language interaction with large language models. In a mixed‑methods experiment with 30 participants, Vibe Coding improved development efficiency—reducing task completion time by 27% versus traditional coding and 12% versus AI‑assisted coding—while also yielding a good usability score (SUS = 71.4) and moderate cognitive workload (NASA‑TLX = 55.5). However, the gains came with trade‑offs: lower maintainability indices, higher security vulnerabilities, and themes of trust calibration, loss of control, and prompt‑engineering strategy emerged, leading the authors to propose a three‑pillar framework for responsible adoption.