arXiv AI By Zhenhan Gao, Marvin Mu\~noz Bar\'on, Umm-e Habiba, Daniel Graziotin, Stefan Wagner

Evaluating the Impact of Explainable AI on Trust in AI-Assisted Code Review

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 12

HalluJudge: A Reference-Free Hallucination Detection for Context Misalignment in Code Review Automation

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.

By Kla Tantithamthavorn, Hong Yi Lin, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Wachiraphan Charoenwet, Minwoo Jeong, Ming Wu
arXiv AI
Jul 7

Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild

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.

By Hong Yi Lin, Mingzhao Liang, Kla Tantithamthavorn, Patanamon Thongtanunam
arXiv AI
Sep 11

XAI-Arena: Can LLMs Assess the Quality of XAI Explanations?

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.

By Yanfei Hu Fleischhauer, Alona Zharova, Nadja Klein, Stefan Feuerriegel