activity
20242026
collaborators

9 papers

cs.SE2026

From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale

Chandra Maddila, Mashrur Rashik, Euna Mehnaz Khan +4

AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggest…

cs.SE2026

A Preliminary Study on Explaining Risk of Code Changes using LLM-Based Prediction Models

Yalin Liu, Kosay Jabre, Rui Abreu +10

Predictions by machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models are often received skeptically unless they are paired with intelligible explanations. In the context of…

cs.SE2026

Automating Low-Risk Code Review at Meta: RADAR, Risk Calibration, and Review Efficiency

Chris Adams, Arjun Singh Banga, Parveen Bansal +28

AI-assisted coding tools have altered software production. At Meta, significant lines of code per human-landed diff grew by 105.9% year over year and per-developer diff volume rose…

cs.SE2025

Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback

Chandra Maddila, Adam Tait, Claire Chang +21

Aim: With the advent of LLMs, sophisticated agentic program repair has become viable at large organizations with large codebases. In this work, we develop an Engineering Agent that…

cs.SE2025

AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale

Chandra Maddila, Negar Ghorbani, James Saindon +7

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…

cs.SE2025

Improving Code Reviewer Recommendation: Accuracy, Latency, Workload, and Bystanders

Peter C. Rigby, Seth Rogers, Sadruddin Saleem +5

The code review team at Meta is continuously improving the code review process. To evaluate the new recommenders, we conduct three A/B tests which are a type of randomized controll…