跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+6109新增论文
+5222其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 07:04 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 06:17各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 08:10 — 2026-11-05 08:10(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-05 07:04最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 06:17库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

14,786 已收录论文12,897 AI 相关3,089 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 07:02(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2611.02566

CR-Bench-v2: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents

Kristen Pereira, Neelabh Sinha, Rajat Ghosh, Debojyoti Dutta

The rapid growth of automated code generation has created a pressing need for automated code review. Yet code review resists full automation: it depends on context beyond the \textit{diff}, on the author's intent, and on judgments about design and maintainability on which even expert reviewers disagree. Existing code review benchmarks lack standardization and rely largely on noisy human review comments scored with text-similarity metrics, which reward surface overlap and fail to measure precision. We introduce \texttt{CR-Bench}, a defect-centric evaluation framework that recasts SWE-Bench issues as pull-request review tasks with full repository context. After filtering for review-detectable defects and grounding each to a single originating pull request, \texttt{CR-Bench} contains 584 instances, with a 174-instance \texttt{CR-Bench-Verified} subset derived from SWE-Bench Verified. Each instance pairs a pull request with a known defect, its ground-truth fix, and a taxonomy label for bug category, impact, and severity. We propose two complementary metrics: \emph{Known-Defect Detection Rate} (KDDR), which measures whether an agent identifies the labeled defect, and \emph{Usefulness Rate}, which measures the fraction of review comments that are actionable. We evaluate eight code review agents over four backbones, plus commercially available Gemini Code Assist, using three independent LLM judges. Even the strongest systems detect only about one-third of known defects (KDDR $\approx$ 33\%), and Gemini Code Assist detects 8.1\%.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.SE · cs.LG
arXiv ↗PDF ↗