AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866918096951836672 |
|---|---|
| author | Maddila, Chandra Ghorbani, Negar Saindon, James Thakkar, Parth Murali, Vijayaraghavan Abreu, Rui Shen, Jingyue Zhou, Brian Nagappan, Nachiappan Rigby, Peter C. |
| author_facet | Maddila, Chandra Ghorbani, Negar Saindon, James Thakkar, Parth Murali, Vijayaraghavan Abreu, Rui Shen, Jingyue Zhou, Brian Nagappan, Nachiappan Rigby, Peter C. |
| contents | Aim. There are 10s of thousands of code review comments each week at Meta. We developed Metamate for Code Review (MetaMateCR) that provides AI-assisted fixes for reviewer comments in production at scale.
Method. We developed an internal benchmark of 64k <review comment, patch> data points to fine-tune Llama models. Once our models achieve reasonable offline results, we roll them into production. To ensure that our AI-assisted fixes do not negatively impact the time it takes to do code reviews, we conduct randomized controlled safety trials as well as full production experiments.
Offline Results. As a baseline, we compare GPT-4o to our small and large Llama models. In offline results, our LargeLSFT model creates an exact match patch 68% of the time outperforming GPT-4o by 9 percentage points (pp). The internal models also use more modern Hack functions when compared to the PHP functions suggested by GPT-4o.
Safety Trial. When we roll MetaMateCR into production in a safety trial that compares no AI patches with AI patch suggestions, we see a large regression with reviewers taking over 5% longer to conduct reviews. After investigation, we modify the UX to only show authors the AI patches, and see no regressions in the time for reviews.
Production. When we roll LargeLSFT into production, we see an ActionableToApplied rate of 19.7%, which is a 9.2pp improvement over GPT-4o. Our results illustrate the importance of safety trials in ensuring that AI does not inadvertently slow down engineers, and a successful review comment to AI patch product running at scale. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_13499 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale Maddila, Chandra Ghorbani, Negar Saindon, James Thakkar, Parth Murali, Vijayaraghavan Abreu, Rui Shen, Jingyue Zhou, Brian Nagappan, Nachiappan Rigby, Peter C. Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence Programming Languages Aim. There are 10s of thousands of code review comments each week at Meta. We developed Metamate for Code Review (MetaMateCR) that provides AI-assisted fixes for reviewer comments in production at scale. Method. We developed an internal benchmark of 64k <review comment, patch> data points to fine-tune Llama models. Once our models achieve reasonable offline results, we roll them into production. To ensure that our AI-assisted fixes do not negatively impact the time it takes to do code reviews, we conduct randomized controlled safety trials as well as full production experiments. Offline Results. As a baseline, we compare GPT-4o to our small and large Llama models. In offline results, our LargeLSFT model creates an exact match patch 68% of the time outperforming GPT-4o by 9 percentage points (pp). The internal models also use more modern Hack functions when compared to the PHP functions suggested by GPT-4o. Safety Trial. When we roll MetaMateCR into production in a safety trial that compares no AI patches with AI patch suggestions, we see a large regression with reviewers taking over 5% longer to conduct reviews. After investigation, we modify the UX to only show authors the AI patches, and see no regressions in the time for reviews. Production. When we roll LargeLSFT into production, we see an ActionableToApplied rate of 19.7%, which is a 9.2pp improvement over GPT-4o. Our results illustrate the importance of safety trials in ensuring that AI does not inadvertently slow down engineers, and a successful review comment to AI patch product running at scale. |
| title | AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale |
| topic | Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence Programming Languages |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13499 |