arXiv:2607. 29516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review.
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. 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.
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.
arXiv:2607. 02782v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictions by machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models are often received skeptically unless they are paired with intelligible explanations.
arXiv:2605. 30208v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-assisted coding tools have altered software production.
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:2607. 13091v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback.
arXiv:2605. 03202v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis.
arXiv:2606. 28438v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recursive self-training can degrade neural generative models when generated data is reused without fresh human data or external quality control.
arXiv:2606. 00049v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely recognised for their applications in natural language generation and are increasingly used for code generation tasks.
arXiv:2608. 06640v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The widespread integration of AI coding assistants offers undeniable boosts to engineering velocity.