Code reviews are central for software quality assurance.
Reading the bibliography…
Chi-square test
Ronald J Tallarida, Rodney B Murray, Ronald J Tallarida, and Rodney B Murray. 1987 · 1987
Earlier work this paper cites.
Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?
Paul A. David and Joseph S. Shapiro. 2008 · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
Potentials and challenges of recommendation systems for software development. In Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Recommendation systems for software engineering . 11–15
Hans-Jörg Happel and Walid Maalej. 2008 · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
Card sorting: Designing usable categories
Donna Spencer. 2009 · 2009
Earlier work this paper cites.
MSR SPLAT, a language analysis toolkit. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2012
Chris Quirk, Pallavi Choudhury, Jianfeng Gao, Hisami Suzuki, Kristina Toutanova, Michael Gamon, Scott Wen-tau Yih, Lucy Vanderwende, and Colin Cherry. 2012 · 2012
Earlier work this paper cites.
Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 712–721
Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013 · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
Patterns of knowledge in API reference documentation
Walid Maalej and Martin P Robillard. 2013 · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
Searching for an operational definition of frailty: a Delphi method based consensus statement. The frailty operative definition-consensus conference project
Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas, Catherine Féart, Giovanni Mann, Jose Viña, Somnath Chatterji, Wojtek Chodzko-Zajko, Magali Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand, Howard Bergman, Laure Carcaillon, Caroline Nicholson, et al · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
Personality, emotional intelligence and work preferences in software engineering: An empirical study
Makrina Viola Kosti, Robert Feldt, and Lefteris Angelis. 2014 · 2014
Earlier work this paper cites.
On the comprehension of program comprehension
Walid Maalej, Rebecca Tiarks, Tobias Roehm, and Rainer Koschke. 2014 · 2014
Earlier work this paper cites.
The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: A case study of the qt, vtk, and itk projects. In Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories . 192–201
Shane McIntosh, Yasutaka Kamei, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2014 · 2014
Earlier work this paper cites.
Four eyes are better than two: On the impact of code reviews on software quality. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 81–90
Gabriele Bavota and Barbara Russo. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Characteristics of useful code reviews: An empirical study at microsoft. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories . IEEE, 146–156
Amiangshu Bosu, Michaela Greiler, and Christian Bird. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter?. In 2015 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 111–120
Oleksii Kononenko, Olga Baysal, Latifa Guerrouj, Yaxin Cao, and Michael W Godfrey. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Do code review practices impact design quality? a case study of the qt, vtk, and itk projects. In 2015 IEEE 22nd international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (SANER) . IEEE, 171–180
Rodrigo Morales, Shane McIntosh, and Foutse Khomh. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Who should review my code? a file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) . IEEE, 141–150
Patanamon Thongtanunam, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, Hajimu Iida, and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review
Motahareh Bahrami Zanjani, Huzefa Kagdi, and Christian Bird. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Code review quality: How developers see it. In Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering . 1028–1038
Oleksii Kononenko, Olga Baysal, and Michael W Godfrey. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Confusion detection in code reviews. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 549–553
Felipe Ebert, Fernando Castor, Nicole Novielli, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Predicting usefulness of code review comments using textual features and developer experience. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . IEEE, 215–226
Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Chanchal K Roy, and Raula G Kula. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
How developers perceive smells in source code: A replicated study
Davide Taibi, Andrea Janes, and Valentina Lenarduzzi. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Intelligent code reviews using deep learning. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’18) Deep Learning Day
Anshul Gupta and Neel Sundaresan. 2018 · 2018
Earlier work this paper cites.
CROP: Linking code reviews to source code changes. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on mining software repositories . 46–49
Matheus Paixao, Jens Krinke, Donggyun Han, and Mark Harman. 2018 · 2018
Earlier work this paper cites.
Information needs in contemporary code review
Luca Pascarella, Davide Spadini, Fabio Palomba, Magiel Bruntink, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018 · 2018
Earlier work this paper cites.
Modern code review: a case study at google. In Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: Software engineering in practice . 181–190
Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg, Luke Church, Michal Sipko, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018 · 2018
Earlier work this paper cites.
A simple nlp-based approach to support onboarding and retention in open source communities. In 2018 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 172–182
Christoph Stanik, Lloyd Montgomery, Daniel Martens, Davide Fucci, and Walid Maalej. 2018 · 2018
Earlier work this paper cites.
How to explain a patch: An empirical study of patch explanations in open source projects. In 2019 IEEE 30th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) . IEEE, 58–69
Jingjing Liang, Yaozong Hou, Shurui Zhou, Junjie Chen, Yingfei Xiong, and Gang Huang. 2019 · 2019
Earlier work this paper cites.
Why these explanations? Selecting intelligibility types for explanation goals.. In IUI Workshops
Brian Y Lim, Qian Yang, Ashraf M Abdul, and Danding Wang. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
On learning meaningful code changes via neural machine translation. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 25–36
Michele Tufano, Jevgenija Pantiuchina, Cody Watson, Gabriele Bavota, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15
Danding Wang, Qian Yang, Ashraf Abdul, and Brian Y Lim. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Two decades of empirical research on developers’ information needs: A preliminary analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops . 71–77
Abir Bouraffa and Walid Maalej. 2020 · 2020
Cited alongside, same era.
Stay professional and efficient: automatically generate titles for your bug reports. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering . 385–397
Songqiang Chen, Xiaoyuan Xie, Bangguo Yin, Yuanxiang Ji, Lin Chen, and Baowen Xu. 2020 · 2020
Cited alongside, same era.
Why reinventing the wheels? An empirical study on library reuse and re-implementation
Bowen Xu, Le An, Ferdian Thung, Foutse Khomh, and David Lo. 2020 · 2020
Cited alongside, same era.
Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can pre-trained transformer models go?. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 70–80
Ting Zhang, Bowen Xu, Ferdian Thung, Stefanus Agus Haryono, David Lo, and Lingxiao Jiang. 2020b · 2020
Cited alongside, same era.
Using a balanced scorecard to identify opportunities to improve code review effectiveness: An industrial experience report
Masum Hasan, Anindya Iqbal, Mohammad Rafid Ul Islam, AJM Imtiajur Rahman, and Amiangshu Bosu. 2021 · 2021
Cited alongside, same era.
An empirical study of Q&A websites for game developers
Arthur Kamienski and Cor-Paul Bezemer. 2021 · 2021
Cited alongside, same era.
Towards automating code review activities. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 163–174
Rosalia Tufano, Luca Pascarella, Michele Tufano, Denys Poshyvanyk, and Gabriele Bavota. 2021 · 2021
Cited alongside, same era.
Predicting design impactful changes in modern code review: A large-scale empirical study. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . IEEE, 471–482
Anderson Uchôa, Caio Barbosa, Daniel Coutinho, Willian Oizumi, Wesley KG Assunçao, Silvia Regina Vergilio, Juliana Alves Pereira, Anderson Oliveira, and Alessandro Garcia. 2021 · 2021
Cited alongside, same era.
Commentfinder: a simpler, faster, more accurate code review comments recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM joint European software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering . 507–519
Yang Hong, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Patanamon Thongtanunam, and Aldeida Aleti. 2022 · 2022
Cited alongside, same era.
Go Gerrit
Google. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Concerns identified in code review: A fine-grained, faceted classification
Sanuri Gunawardena, Ewan Tempero, and Kelly Blincoe. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Is ChatGPT Better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW ’23 Companion) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 294–297
Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
On wasted contributions: understanding the dynamics of contributor-abandoned pull requests–A mixed-methods study of 10 large open-source projects
SayedHassan Khatoonabadi, Diego Elias Costa, Rabe Abdalkareem, and Emad Shihab. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Refining ChatGPT-generated code: Characterizing and mitigating code quality issues
Yue Liu, Thanh Le-Cong, Ratnadira Widyasari, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Li Li, Xuan-Bach D Le, and David Lo. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
From RSSE to BotSE: Potentials and Challenges Revisited after 15 Years. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering (BotSE) . 19–22
Walid Maalej. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Experiences from using code explanations generated by large language models in a web software development e-book. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 . 931–937
Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Arto Hellas, Joanne Kim, Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Seth Bernstein, and Juho Leinonen. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
ChatGPT Version
OpenAI. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Phacility - Phabricator
Phacility. 2021 · 2023
Closest in time.
Evaluating Software Documentation Quality. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . 67–78
Henry Tang and Sarah Nadi. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
What Makes a Code Review Useful to OpenDev Developers? An Empirical Investigation
Asif Kamal Turzo and Amiangshu Bosu. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Code Review Explanation Replication Package
Ratnadira Widyasari, Ting Zhang, Abir Bouraffa, Walid Maalej, and David Lo. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Competencies for Code Review
Pavlína Wurzel Gonçalves, Gül Calikli, Alexander Serebrenik, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for $0.42 each using ChatGPT
Chunqiu Steven Xia and Lingming Zhang. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
The replication package of Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can pre-trained transformer models go? accepted by ICSME’20
Ting Zhang, Bowen Xu, Ferdian Thung, Stefanus Agus Haryono, David Lo, and Lingxiao Jiang. 2020a · 2023
Closest in time.
Large language models are human-level prompt engineers
Yongchao Zhou, Andrei Ioan Muresanu, Ziwen Han, Keiran Paster, Silviu Pitis, Harris Chan, and Jimmy Ba. 2023 · 2023
Closest in time.
ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi
William T Gattrell, Patricia Logullo, Esther J van Zuuren, Amy Price, Ellen L Hughes, Paul Blazey, Christopher C Winchester, David Tovey, Keith Goldman, Amrit Pali Hungin, et al · 2024
Closest in time.
Large language models are few-shot summarizers: Multi-intent comment generation via in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering . 1–13
M. Geng, S. Wang, D. Dong, H. Wang, G. Li, Z. Jin, X. Mao, and X. Liao. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Exploring the potential of chatgpt in automated code refinement: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering . 1–13
Qi Guo, Junming Cao, Xiaofei Xie, Shangqing Liu, Xiaohong Li, Bihuan Chen, and Xin Peng. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Evaluating Fault Localization and Program Repair Capabilities of Existing Closed-Source General-Purpose LLMs
Shengbei Jiang, Jiabao Zhang, Wei Chen, Bo Wang, Jianyi Zhou, and Jie M Zhang. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Human-in-the-Loop Synthetic Text Data Inspection with Provenance Tracking. In NAACL 2024
Hong Jin Kang, Fabrice Harel-Canada, Muhammad Ali Gulzar, Violet Peng, and Miryung Kim. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation
Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Google Gemini
Google Research. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Gptscan: Detecting logic vulnerabilities in smart contracts by combining gpt with program analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1–13
Yuqiang Sun, Daoyuan Wu, Yue Xue, Han Liu, Haijun Wang, Zhengzi Xu, Xiaofei Xie, and Yang Liu. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Demystifying Faulty Code with LLM: Step-by-Step Reasoning for Explainable Fault Localization. In 2024 IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (SANER) . IEEE
Ratnadira Widyasari, Jia Wei Ang, Truong Giang Nguyen, Neil Sharma, and David Lo. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
Large Language Model for Vulnerability Detection: Emerging Results and Future Directions. In 2024 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), New Ideas and Emerging Results (NIER) Track . IEEE
Xin Zhou, Ting Zhang, and David Lo. 2024 · 2024
Closest in time.
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…