Zobraziť v EDS

Accountability in Code Review: The Role of Intrinsic Drivers and the Impact of LLMs.

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Názov: Accountability in Code Review: The Role of Intrinsic Drivers and the Impact of LLMs.
Autori: Alami, Adam, Jensen, Victor, Ernst, Neil
Zdroj: ACM Transactions on Software Engineering & Methodology; Nov2025, Vol. 34 Issue 8, p1-44, 44p
Predmety: COMPUTER software development, LANGUAGE models, ORGANIZATIONAL accountability, INCENTIVE (Psychology), GOVERNMENT accountability, ARTIFICIAL intelligence, PROFESSIONAL peer review, SOCIAL systems
Abstrakt: Accountability is an innate part of social systems. It maintains stability and ensures positive pressure on individuals' decision-making. As actors in a social system, software developers are accountable to their team and organization for their decisions. However, the drivers of accountability and how it changes behavior in software development are less understood. In this study, we look at how the social aspects of code review affect software engineers' sense of accountability for code quality. Since Software Engineering (SE) is increasingly involving Large Language Models (LLM) assistance, we also evaluate the impact on accountability when introducing LLM-assisted code reviews. We carried out a two-phased sequential qualitative study (\(\textbf{interviews}\rightarrow\textbf{focus groups}\)). In Phase I (16 interviews), we sought to investigate the intrinsic drivers of software engineers influencing their sense of accountability for code quality, relying on self-reported claims. In Phase II, we tested these traits in a more natural setting by simulating traditional peer-led reviews with focus groups and then LLM-assisted review sessions. We found that there are four key intrinsic drivers of accountability for code quality: personal standards, professional integrity, pride in code quality, and maintaining one's reputation. In a traditional peer-led review, we observed a transition from individual to collective accountability when code reviews are initiated. We also found that the introduction of LLM-assisted reviews disrupts this accountability process, challenging the reciprocity of accountability taking place in peer-led evaluations, i.e., one cannot be accountable to an LLM. Our findings imply that the introduction of AI into SE must preserve social integrity and collective accountability mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of ACM Transactions on Software Engineering & Methodology is the property of Association for Computing Machinery and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Databáza: Complementary Index
Popis
Abstrakt:Accountability is an innate part of social systems. It maintains stability and ensures positive pressure on individuals' decision-making. As actors in a social system, software developers are accountable to their team and organization for their decisions. However, the drivers of accountability and how it changes behavior in software development are less understood. In this study, we look at how the social aspects of code review affect software engineers' sense of accountability for code quality. Since Software Engineering (SE) is increasingly involving Large Language Models (LLM) assistance, we also evaluate the impact on accountability when introducing LLM-assisted code reviews. We carried out a two-phased sequential qualitative study (\(\textbf{interviews}\rightarrow\textbf{focus groups}\)). In Phase I (16 interviews), we sought to investigate the intrinsic drivers of software engineers influencing their sense of accountability for code quality, relying on self-reported claims. In Phase II, we tested these traits in a more natural setting by simulating traditional peer-led reviews with focus groups and then LLM-assisted review sessions. We found that there are four key intrinsic drivers of accountability for code quality: personal standards, professional integrity, pride in code quality, and maintaining one's reputation. In a traditional peer-led review, we observed a transition from individual to collective accountability when code reviews are initiated. We also found that the introduction of LLM-assisted reviews disrupts this accountability process, challenging the reciprocity of accountability taking place in peer-led evaluations, i.e., one cannot be accountable to an LLM. Our findings imply that the introduction of AI into SE must preserve social integrity and collective accountability mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:1049331X
DOI:10.1145/3721127