arXiv:2607. 29516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review.
By Chandra Maddila, Mashrur Rashik, Euna Mehnaz Khan, Smriti Jha, James Saindon, Nachi Nagappan, Peter C. Rigby
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.
By Shyam Agarwal, Courtney Miller, Christian K\"astner, Bogdan Vasilescu
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: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.
By H\"useyin \"Ozg\"ur Kamal{\i}, Erdem Tuna, Vahid Haratian, Eray T\"uz\"un
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.
By Aditya Aggarwal, Nahid Farhady Ghalaty
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.
By Zhenhan Gao, Marvin Mu\~noz Bar\'on, Umm-e Habiba, Daniel Graziotin, Stefan Wagner