Version control relies on commit messages to convey the rationale for code changes, but these messages are often low quality and, more critically, inconsistent with their diffs-known as message-code inconsistency (MCI). MCIs mislead reviewers, hinder maintenance, contaminate research datasets, and may obscure security patches. Yet, no dedicated benchmark exists to evaluate models for MCI detection. We introduce CODEFUSE-COMMITEVAL, the first benchmark designed for MCI detection using large language models (LLMs). Built on the ApacheCM dataset for diversity and quality, we generate seven types of inconsistent messages through rule-guided mutations of originally consistent commits and apply two-fold validation to verify both positive and negative samples. Using this labeled dataset of message-diff pairs, we evaluate six state-of-the-art open-source LLMs under a vanilla setting and with three augmentation strategies: few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought, and extended context. Results show models detect inconsistent commits more reliably than consistent ones (average Recall 85.95%, Precision 80.28%, Specificity 63.8%); gpt-oss-20B performs best overall but uses over twice the tokens of others. Augmentation effects vary: adjacent context helps larger models but adds noise for smaller ones; few-shot improves accuracy and reduces token use, yet increases universally incorrect predictions; chain-of-thought boosts precision and specificity at the cost of recall and higher token consumption. Type-wise analysis reveals higher detectability for component, file-path, and operation inconsistencies, but lower accuracy and higher token cost for intent-level "purpose" inconsistencies. CODEFUSE-COMMITEVAL provides a rigorous foundation for measuring, comparing, and advancing MCI detection, highlighting the need for richer context and balanced data to capture high-level semantic gaps.

Atomic commits, which address a single development concern, are a best practice in software development. In practice, however, developers often produce tangled commits that mix unrelated changes, complicating code review and maintenance. Prior untangling approaches (rule-based, feature-based, or graph-based) have made progress but typically rely on shallow signals and struggle to distinguish explicit dependencies (e.g., control/data flow) from implicit ones (e.g., semantic or conceptual relationships). In this paper, we propose ColaUntangle, a new collaborative consultation framework for commit untangling that models both explicit and implicit dependencies among code changes. ColaUntangle integrates Large Language Model (LLM)-driven agents in a multi-agent architecture: one agent specializes in explicit dependencies, another in implicit ones, and a reviewer agent synthesizes their perspectives through iterative consultation. To capture structural and contextual information, we construct Explicit and Implicit Contexts, enabling agents to reason over code relationships with both symbolic and semantic depth. We evaluate ColaUntangle on two widely-used datasets (1,612 C# and 14k Java tangled commits). Experimental results show that ColaUntangle outperforms the best-performing baseline, achieving an improvement of 44% on the C# dataset and 82% on the Java dataset. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based collaborative frameworks for advancing automated commit untangling tasks.

Modern software programs are built on stacks that are often undergoing changes that introduce updates and improvements, but may also break any project that depends upon them. In this paper we explore the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code migration, specifically the problem of maintaining compatibility with a dependency as it undergoes major and minor semantic version changes. We demonstrate, using metrics such as test coverage and change comparisons, that contexts containing diffs can significantly improve performance against out of the box LLMs and, in some cases, perform better than using code. We provide a dataset to assist in further development of this problem area, as well as an open-source Python package, AIMigrate, that can be used to assist with migrating code bases. In a real-world migration of TYPHOIDSIM between STARSIM versions, AIMigrate correctly identified 65% of required changes in a single run, increasing to 80% with multiple runs, with 47% of changes generated perfectly.

Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been that commit messages describe human intent in natural language, and patches to code describe the changes that implement that intent. However, much of the previously collected data is noisy: commit messages are terse, human-written commits commingle several unrelated edits, and many commits come from simple, rule-based bots. The recent adoption of software engineering agents changes this landscape. Code changes co-authored by humans and agents tend to be more narrowly scoped and focused on clearer goals. Their commit messages, generated by LLMs, articulate intent and rationale in much greater detail. Moreover, when these changes land in public repositories, they are implicitly filtered by humans: maintainers discard low-quality commits to their projects. We present AgentPack, a corpus of 1.3M code edits co-authored by Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Cursor Agent across public GitHub projects up to mid-August 2025. We describe the identification and curation pipeline, quantify adoption trends of these agents, and analyze the structural properties of the edits. Finally, we show that models fine-tuned on AgentPack can outperform models trained on prior human-only commit corpora, highlighting the potential of using public data from software engineering agents to train future code-editing models.

Abstract--In modern software development change-based testing plays a crucial role. However, as codebases expand and test suites grow, efficiently managing the testing process becomes increasingly challenging, especially given the high frequency of daily code commits. We propose T argeted T est Selection (T -TS), a machine learning approach for industrial test selection. Our key innovation is a data representation that represent commits as Bags-of-Words of changed files, incorporates cross-file and additional predictive features, and notably avoids the use of coverage maps. Deployed in production, T -TS was comprehensively evaluated against industry standards and recent methods using both internal and public datasets, measuring time efficiency and fault detection. On live industrial data, T -TS selects only 15% of tests, reduces execution time by 5.9, accelerates the pipeline by 5.6, and detects over 95% of test failures. The implementation is publicly available to support further research and practical adoption. Continuous integration (CI) is a common and widely used software engineering development practice. Each CI cycle involves software testing that aims to detect potential bugs in the changed code before deploying it to production. One of the key tasks performed in CI testing is regression testing, where new code changes are tested within each CI cycle. In order to prevent bugs occurring after critical stage in CI cycle (e.g. As long as a project is being developed and handled, the amount of test cases increases proportionally. This necessity leads to huge computational resources consumption and regression testing becomes time-consuming. Hence, feedback for authors of changes is available long after tests execution had been run and further development is thus collapsed until all executed tests outcomes are known.

Just-in-Time software defect prediction (JIT-SDP) plays a critical role in prioritizing risky code changes during code review and continuous integration. However, existing datasets often suffer from noisy labels and low precision in identifying bug-inducing commits. To address this, we present ReDef (Revert-based Defect dataset), a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects. Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks. Ambiguous instances are conservatively filtered out via a GPT-assisted triage process involving multiple votes and audits. This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior existing resources. Beyond dataset construction, we provide the first systematic evaluation of how pre-trained language models (PLMs) reason about code modifications -- specifically, which input encodings most effectively expose change information, and whether models genuinely capture edit semantics. We fine-tune CodeBERT, CodeT5+, and UniXcoder under five encoding strategies, and further probe their sensitivity through counterfactual perturbations that swap added/deleted blocks, invert diff polarity, or inject spurious markers. Our results show that compact diff-style encodings consistently outperform whole-function formats across all PLMs, with statistical tests confirming large, model-independent effects. However, under counterfactual tests, performance degrades little or not at all -- revealing that what appears to be robustness in fact reflects reliance on superficial cues rather than true semantic understanding. These findings indicate that, unlike in snapshot-based tasks, current PLMs remain limited in their ability to genuinely comprehend code modifications.

Automating the decision of whether a code change requires manual review is vital for maintaining software quality in modern development workflows. However, the emergence of new programming languages and frameworks creates a critical bottleneck: while large volumes of unlabelled code are readily available, there is an insufficient amount of labelled data to train supervised models for review classification. We address this challenge by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to translate code changes from well-resourced languages into equivalent changes in underrepresented or emerging languages, generating synthetic training data where labelled examples are scarce. We assume that although LLMs have learned the syntax and semantics of new languages from available unlabelled code, they have yet to fully grasp which code changes are considered significant or review-worthy within these emerging ecosystems. To overcome this, we use LLMs to generate synthetic change examples and train supervised classifiers on them. We systematically compare the performance of these classifiers against models trained on real labelled data. Our experiments across multiple GitHub repositories and language pairs demonstrate that LLM-generated synthetic data can effectively bootstrap review recommendation systems, narrowing the performance gap even in low-resource settings. This approach provides a scalable pathway to extend automated code review capabilities to rapidly evolving technology stacks, even in the absence of annotated data.

Language models have shown strong capabilities across a wide range of tasks in software engineering, such as code generation, yet they suffer from hallucinations. While hallucinations have been studied independently in natural language and code generation, their occurrence in tasks involving code changes which have a structurally complex and context-dependent format of code remains largely unexplored. This paper presents the first comprehensive analysis of hallucinations in two critical tasks involving code change to natural language generation: commit message generation and code review comment generation. We quantify the prevalence of hallucinations in recent language models and explore a range of metric-based approaches to automatically detect them. Our findings reveal that approximately 50\% of generated code reviews and 20\% of generated commit messages contain hallucinations. Whilst commonly used metrics are weak detectors on their own, combining multiple metrics substantially improves performance. Notably, model confidence and feature attribution metrics effectively contribute to hallucination detection, showing promise for inference-time detection.\footnote{All code and data will be released upon acceptance.