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.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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: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:2607. 29516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review.
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:2608. 05179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and 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.