论文精选73°

MCR-Bench:首个多轮代码审查基准测试

From Static to Dynamic: Benchmarking Real-World Code Review with MCR-Bench

精选理由

MCR-Bench揭示了当前LLM在真实代码审查中的不足,特别是跨轮次时间对齐和长程记忆问题。

AI 摘要

MCR-Bench是首个缺陷状态感知的多轮代码审查基准,覆盖5种编程语言,包含2269个真实世界多轮代码审查任务。实验显示主流大模型在缺陷检测和生命周期状态跟踪方面能力有限,随着交互轮次增加性能显著下降。模型在不同缺陷类型和严重程度上表现差异大,语义复杂或低显著性缺陷更易被遗漏。

原文 · arXiv cs.AI

From Static to Dynamic: Benchmarking Real-World Code Review with MCR-Bench

In real-world software development, code review typically involves iterative interactions between developers and reviewers to improve software quality, making the process costly and time-consuming. Although recent work explores large language models (LLMs) for automated code review, most approaches oversimplify code review into a single-round, static decision task, which fails to capture the multi-round interactive nature and the complex problem-solving processes inherent in realistic review scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MCR-Bench, the first defect state-aware benchmark designed for realistic multi-round code review. MCR-Bench covers five commonly-used programming languages and consists of 2,269 real-world multi-round code review tasks, each of which is annotated with fine-grained defect information and cross-round state labels. Each task in MCR-Bench is equipped with fine-grained defect metadata (e.g., description, type, severity) alongside dynamic state annotations, capturing the complete evolutionary trajectory of a defect throughout the multi-round process. We obtain several findings through extensive experiments on MCR-Bench with mainstream LLMs. (1) Limited overall capability: experiments reveal that mainstream LLMs exhibit limited overall performance in defect detection and defect lifecycle state tracking, with performance degrading significantly as the number of interaction rounds increases; (2) Defect-sensitive performance: LLMs' performance varies substantially across different defect types and severity levels, with semantically complex or low-salience defects being significantly more likely to be missed; (3) Underlying Failure Mechanisms: our in-depth error analysis dissects the distinct drivers of false positives and false negatives, revealing critical weaknesses such as cross-round temporal misalignment and inadequate long-range memory.