State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive code generation capabilities but struggle with real-world software engineering tasks, such as revising source code to address code reviews, hindering their practical use. Code review comments are often implicit, ambiguous, and colloquial, requiring models to grasp both code and human intent. This challenge calls for evaluating large language models' ability to bridge both technical and conversational contexts. While existing work has employed the automated code refinement (ACR) task to resolve these comments, current evaluation methods fall short, relying on text matching metrics that provide limited insight into model failures and remain susceptible to training data contamination. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel evaluation benchmark, $\textbf{CodeReviewQA}$ that enables us to conduct fine-grained assessment of model capabilities and mitigate data contamination risks. In CodeReviewQA, we decompose the generation task of code refinement into $\textbf{three essential reasoning steps}$: $\textit{change type recognition}$ (CTR), $\textit{change localisation}$ (CL), and $\textit{solution identification}$ (SI). Each step is reformulated as multiple-choice questions with varied difficulty levels, enabling precise assessment of model capabilities, while mitigating data contamination risks. Our comprehensive evaluation spans 72 recently released large language models on $\textbf{900 manually curated, high-quality examples}$ across nine programming languages. Our results show that CodeReviewQA is able to expose specific model weaknesses in code review comprehension, disentangled from their generative automated code refinement results.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in commercial code completion engines, significantly enhancing coding efficiency and productivity. However, LLMs may generate code with quality issues that violate coding standards and best practices, such as poor code style and maintainability, even when the code is functionally correct. This necessitates additional effort from developers to improve the code, potentially negating the efficiency gains provided by LLMs. To address this problem, we propose a novel comparative prefix-tuning method for controllable high-quality code generation. Our method introduces a single, property-specific prefix that is prepended to the activations of the LLM, serving as a lightweight alternative to fine-tuning. Unlike existing methods that require training multiple prefixes, our approach trains only one prefix and leverages pairs of high-quality and low-quality code samples, introducing a sequence-level ranking loss to guide the model's training. This comparative approach enables the model to better understand the differences between high-quality and low-quality code, focusing on aspects that impact code quality. Additionally, we design a data construction pipeline to collect and annotate pairs of high-quality and low-quality code, facilitating effective training. Extensive experiments on the Code Llama 7B model demonstrate that our method improves code quality by over 100% in certain task categories, while maintaining functional correctness. We also conduct ablation studies and generalization experiments, confirming the effectiveness of our method's components and its strong generalization capability.

Many studies exploring the adoption of Large Language Model-based tools for software development by junior developers have emerged in recent years. These studies have sought to understand developers' perspectives about using those tools, a fundamental pillar for successfully adopting LLM-based tools in Software Engineering. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of junior software developers' perspectives and use of LLM-based tools for software engineering (LLM4SE). We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) following guidelines by Kitchenham et al. on 56 primary studies, applying the definition for junior software developers as software developers with equal or less than five years of experience, including Computer Science/Software Engineering students. We found that the majority of the studies focused on comprehending the different aspects of integrating AI tools in SE. Only 8.9\% of the studies provide a clear definition for junior software developers, and there is no uniformity. Searching for relevant information is the most common task using LLM tools. ChatGPT was the most common LLM tool present in the studies (and experiments). A majority of the studies (83.9\%) report both positive and negative perceptions about the impact of adopting LLM tools. We also found and categorised advantages, challenges, and recommendations regarding LLM adoption. Our results indicate that developers are using LLMs not just for code generation, but also to improve their development skills. Critically, they are not just experiencing the benefits of adopting LLM tools, but they are also aware of at least a few LLM limitations, such as the generation of wrong suggestions, potential data leaking, and AI hallucination. Our findings offer implications for software engineering researchers, educators, and developers.

Recent advances in AI reasoning models provide unprecedented transparency into their decision-making processes, transforming them from traditional black-box systems into models that articulate step-by-step chains of thought rather than producing opaque outputs. This shift has the potential to improve software quality, explainability, and trust in AI-augmented development. However, software engineers rarely have the time or cognitive bandwidth to analyze, verify, and interpret every AI-generated thought in detail. Without an effective interface, this transparency could become a burden rather than a benefit. In this paper, we propose a vision for structuring the interaction between AI reasoning models and software engineers to maximize trust, efficiency, and decision-making power. We argue that simply exposing AI's reasoning is not enough -- software engineers need tools and frameworks that selectively highlight critical insights, filter out noise, and facilitate rapid validation of key assumptions. To illustrate this challenge, we present motivating examples in which AI reasoning models state their assumptions when deciding which external library to use and produce divergent reasoning paths and recommendations about security vulnerabilities, highlighting the need for an interface that prioritizes actionable insights while managing uncertainty and resolving conflicts. We then outline a research roadmap for integrating automated summarization, assumption validation, and multi-model conflict resolution into software engineering workflows. Achieving this vision will unlock the full potential of AI reasoning models to enable software engineers to make faster, more informed decisions without being overwhelmed by unnecessary detail.

The widespread adoption of generative AI in software engineering marks a paradigm shift, offering new opportunities to design and utilize software engineering tools while influencing both developers and the artifacts they create. Traditional empirical methods in software engineering, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches, are well established. However, this paradigm shift introduces novel data types and redefines many concepts in the software engineering process. The roles of developers, users, agents, and researchers increasingly overlap, blurring the distinctions between these social and technical actors within the field. This paper examines how integrating AI into software engineering challenges traditional research paradigms. It focuses on the research phenomena that we investigate, the methods and theories that we employ, the data we analyze, and the threats to validity that emerge in this new context. Through this exploration, our goal is to understand how AI adoption disrupts established software development practices that creates new opportunities for empirical software engineering research.

Artificial intelligence (AI), including large language models and generative AI, is emerging as a significant force in software development, offering developers powerful tools that span the entire development lifecycle. Although software engineering research has extensively studied AI tools in software development, the specific types of interactions between developers and these AI-powered tools have only recently begun to receive attention. Understanding and improving these interactions has the potential to improve productivity, trust, and efficiency in AI-driven workflows. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy of interaction types between developers and AI tools, identifying eleven distinct interaction types, such as auto-complete code suggestions, command-driven actions, and conversational assistance. Building on this taxonomy, we outline a research agenda focused on optimizing AI interactions, improving developer control, and addressing trust and usability challenges in AI-assisted development. By establishing a structured foundation for studying developer-AI interactions, this paper aims to stimulate research on creating more effective, adaptive AI tools for software development.

Modern code review is a ubiquitous software quality assurance process aimed at identifying potential issues within newly written code. Despite its effectiveness, the process demands large amounts of effort from the human reviewers involved. To help alleviate this workload, researchers have trained deep learning models to imitate human reviewers in providing natural language code reviews. Formally, this task is known as code review comment generation. Prior work has demonstrated improvements in this task by leveraging machine learning techniques and neural models, such as transfer learning and the transformer architecture. However, the quality of the model generated reviews remain sub-optimal due to the quality of the open-source code review data used in model training. This is in part due to the data obtained from open-source projects where code reviews are conducted in a public forum, and reviewers possess varying levels of software development experience, potentially affecting the quality of their feedback. To accommodate for this variation, we propose a suite of experience-aware training methods that utilise the reviewers' past authoring and reviewing experiences as signals for review quality. Specifically, we propose experience-aware loss functions (ELF), which use the reviewers' authoring and reviewing ownership of a project as weights in the model's loss function. Through this method, experienced reviewers' code reviews yield larger influence over the model's behaviour. Compared to the SOTA model, ELF was able to generate higher quality reviews in terms of accuracy, informativeness, and comment types generated. The key contribution of this work is the demonstration of how traditional software engineering concepts such as reviewer experience can be integrated into the design of AI-based automated code review models.

Stop words, which are considered non-predictive, are often eliminated in natural language processing tasks. However, the definition of uninformative vocabulary is vague, so most algorithms use general knowledge-based stop lists to remove stop words. There is an ongoing debate among academics about the usefulness of stop word elimination, especially in domain-specific settings. In this work, we investigate the usefulness of stop word removal in a software engineering context. To do this, we replicate and experiment with three software engineering research tools from related work. Additionally, we construct a corpus of software engineering domain-related text from 10,000 Stack Overflow questions and identify 200 domain-specific stop words using traditional information-theoretic methods. Our results show that the use of domain-specific stop words significantly improved the performance of research tools compared to the use of a general stop list and that 17 out of 19 evaluation measures showed better performance. Online appendix: https://zenodo.org/record/7865748

Implicit gender bias in software development is a well-documented issue, such as the association of technical roles with men. To address this bias, it is important to understand it in more detail. This study uses data mining techniques to investigate the extent to which 56 tasks related to software development, such as assigning GitHub issues and testing, are affected by implicit gender bias embedded in large language models. We systematically translated each task from English into a genderless language and back, and investigated the pronouns associated with each task. Based on translating each task 100 times in different permutations, we identify a significant disparity in the gendered pronoun associations with different tasks. Specifically, requirements elicitation was associated with the pronoun "he" in only 6% of cases, while testing was associated with "he" in 100% of cases. Additionally, tasks related to helping others had a 91% association with "he" while the same association for tasks related to asking coworkers was only 52%. These findings reveal a clear pattern of gender bias related to software development tasks and have important implications for addressing this issue both in the training of large language models and in broader society.

As a popular Q&A site for programming, Stack Overflow is a treasure for developers. However, the amount of questions and answers on Stack Overflow make it difficult for developers to efficiently locate the information they are looking for. There are two gaps leading to poor search results: the gap between the user's intention and the textual query, and the semantic gap between the query and the post content. Therefore, developers have to constantly reformulate their queries by correcting misspelled words, adding limitations to certain programming languages or platforms, etc. As query reformulation is tedious for developers, especially for novices, we propose an automated software-specific query reformulation approach based on deep learning. With query logs provided by Stack Overflow, we construct a large-scale query reformulation corpus, including the original queries and corresponding reformulated ones. Our approach trains a Transformer model that can automatically generate candidate reformulated queries when given the user's original query. The evaluation results show that our approach outperforms five state-of-the-art baselines, and achieves a 5.6% to 33.5% boost in terms of $\mathit{ExactMatch}$ and a 4.8% to 14.4% boost in terms of $\mathit{GLEU}$.