arXiv:2409.15152cs.SE
Predicting Expert Evaluations in Software Code Reviews
Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.
Abstract
Manual code reviews are an essential but time-consuming part of software development, often leading reviewers to prioritize technical issues while skipping valuable assessments. This paper presents an algorithmic model that automates aspects of code review typically avoided due to their complexity or subjectivity, such as assessing coding time, implementation time, and code complexity. Instead of replacing manual reviews, our model adds insights that help reviewers focus on more impactful tasks. Calibrated using expert evaluations, the model predicts key metrics from code commits with strong correlations to human judgments (r = 0.82 for coding time, r = 0.86 for implementation time). By automating these assessments, we reduce the burden on human reviewers and ensure consistent analysis of time-consuming areas, offering a scalable solution alongside manual reviews. This research shows how automated tools can enhance code reviews by addressing overlooked tasks, supporting data-driven decisions and improving the review process.
Is there another source for this information that isn't twitter with infographic style posts? They've got a different paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15152 ... is there an equivalent for the ghost engineers data?
shagieView on HNParent context