Several Deep Learning (DL)-based techniques have been proposed to automate code review. Still, it is unclear the extent to which these approaches can recommend quality improvements as a human reviewer. We study the similarities and differences between code reviews performed by humans and those automatically generated by DL models, using ChatGPT-4 as representative of the latter. In particular, we run a mining-based study in which we collect and manually inspect 739 comments posted by human reviewers to suggest code changes in 240 PRs. The manual inspection aims at classifying the type of quality improvement recommended by human reviewers (e.g., rename variable/constant). Then, we ask ChatGPT to perform a code review on the same PRs and we compare the quality improvements it recommends against those suggested by the human reviewers. We show that while, on average, ChatGPT tends to recommend a higher number of code changes as compared to human reviewers (∼ 2.4 × more), it can only spot 10% of the quality issues reported by humans. However, ∼ 40% of the additional comments generated by the LLM point to meaningful quality issues. In short, our findings show the complementarity of manual and AI-based code review. This finding suggests that, in its current state, DL-based code review can be used as a further quality check on top of the one performed by humans, but should not be considered as a valid alternative to them nor as a mean to save code review time, since human reviewers would still need to perform their manual inspection while also validating the quality issues reported by the DL-based technique.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A (Question & Answer). The basic idea is to delegate to an LLM the assessment of the “quality” of the output provided by an automated technique (often another LLM) for tasks for which: (i) quantitative metrics would only tell part of the story, and; (ii) a large-scale human-based evaluation would be too expensive. LLMs-as-a-judge, if proven effective for a specific task, can also unlock new possibilities for automation, with several LLMs proposing a solution for a given instance of the task (e.g., an answer to a question) and others judging and deciding what is the best output to show the user. We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namelycode generationandcode summarization. The rationale for choosing these tasks is two-fold. First, quantitative metrics are usually not enough for the assessment of code summarizers/generators. For example, it is well documented that metrics such as BLEU are quite weak proxies for the quality of the generated summaries. Second, even state-of-the-art techniques still struggle with handling complex instances of these tasks (e.g., summarizing a quite long / complex function), making them good candidates for benefiting from more advanced solutions envisioning collaboration among LLMs. Forcode generation, we check whether eight LLMs are able to judge the correctness of 1,405 Java methods and 1,281 Python functions generated by the same LLMs or implemented by humans. Forcode summarization, we compare the judgment of five LLMs to those provided by nine humans for ç1.2k summaries, related to both Java and Python functions. Our findings show that GPT-4-turbo is the best LLM in terms of judging capabilities for both tasks, with “smaller” LLMs featuring tens of billions parameters not being able to cope with judging tasks. However, even the best-performing LLM frequently misjudges the correctness of the code and summary quality.