arXiv subjects

Ryan Jiang

Publications and source records attributed to Ryan Jiang.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassian

Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered code review automation has the potential to transform code review workflows. Despite the advances of LLM-powered code review comment generation approaches, several practical challenges remain for designing enterprise-grade code review automation tools. In particular, this paper aims at answering the practical question: how can we design a review-guided, context-aware, quality-checked code review comment generation without fine-tuning? In this paper, we present RovoDev Code Reviewer, an enterprise-grade LLM-based code review automation tool designed and deployed at scale within Atlassian's development ecosystem with seamless integration into Atlassian's Bitbucket. Through the offline, online, user feedback evaluations over a one-year period, we conclude that RovoDev Code Reviewer is effective in generating code review comments that could lead to code resolution for 38.70% (i.e., comments that triggered code changes in the subsequent commits); and offers the promise of accelerating feedback cycles (i.e., decreasing the PR cycle time by 30.8%), alleviating reviewer workload (i.e., reducing the number of human-written comments by 35.6%), and improving overall software quality (i.e., finding errors with actionable suggestions).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

What Types of Code Review Comments Do Developers Most Frequently Resolve?

Large language model (LLM)-powered code review automation tools have been introduced to generate code review comments. However, not all generated comments will drive code changes. Understanding what types of generated review comments are likely to trigger code changes is crucial for identifying those that are actionable. In this paper, we set out to investigate (1) the types of review comments written by humans and LLMs, and (2) the types of generated comments that are most frequently resolved by developers. To do so, we developed an LLM-as-a-Judge to automatically classify review comments based on our own taxonomy of five categories. Our empirical study confirms that (1) the LLM reviewer and human reviewers exhibit distinct strengths and weaknesses depending on the project context, and (2) readability, bugs, and maintainability-related comments had higher resolution rates than those focused on code design. These results suggest that a substantial proportion of LLM-generated comments are actionable and can be resolved by developers. Our work highlights the complementarity between LLM and human reviewers and offers suggestions to improve the practical effectiveness of LLM-powered code review tools.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Propagational Proxy Voting

This paper proposes a voting process in which voters allocate fractional votes to their expected utility in different domains: over proposals, other participants, and sets containing proposals and participants. This approach allows for a more nuanced expression of preferences by calculating the result and relevance within each node. We modeled this by creating a voting matrix that reflects their preference. We use absorbing Markov chains to gain the consensus, and also calculate the influence within the participating nodes. We illustrate this method in action through an experiment with 69 students using a budget allocation topic.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2022

Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionality

We present a novel task and dataset for evaluating the ability of vision and language models to conduct visio-linguistic compositional reasoning, which we call Winoground. Given two images and two captions, the goal is to match them correctly - but crucially, both captions contain a completely identical set of words, only in a different order. The dataset was carefully hand-curated by expert annotators and is labeled with a rich set of fine-grained tags to assist in analyzing model performance. We probe a diverse range of state-of-the-art vision and language models and find that, surprisingly, none of them do much better than chance. Evidently, these models are not as skilled at visio-linguistic compositional reasoning as we might have hoped. We perform an extensive analysis to obtain insights into how future work might try to mitigate these models' shortcomings. We aim for Winoground to serve as a useful evaluation set for advancing the state of the art and driving further progress in the field. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/facebook/winoground.

cs.CV↗