arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.22610

Does Order Matter? An Empirical Investigation into the Impact of File Ordering on Code Review Effectiveness

Md Shamimur Rahman·Zadia Codabux·Chanchal K. Roy
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Modern code review is central to software quality, but its effectiveness depends on reviewer expertise, change characteristics, and how tools present changes. Most platforms display modified files alphabetically by default, although our prior work shows that developers find this ordering cognitively misaligned with how they understand multi-file pull requests. Whether these ordering-related attention patterns affect outcomes at scale remains unclear. We present a large-scale study of file ordering and review effectiveness, mining 330,343 multi-file pull requests and 756,814 file instances from 182 GitHub projects in five programming languages. We examine whether file position is associated with later bug-fixing changes, whether pull request size moderates this relationship, and whether reviewer attention, proxied by comments, aligns with latent bug outcomes. Results show statistically significant but modest associations among file position, pull request size, review activity, and latent bug likelihood. Latent bug rates rise from 56.7% at position 1 to 61.5% at position 30. Pull request size has a non-linear relationship with latent bug likelihood: pull requests of about ten files have the lowest risk, while very small and very large ones have elevated rates. Hurdle models show that attention is diluted as pull request size grows: each additional modified file reduces the odds of receiving any review comment by about 8.7%. These findings reveal an attention-effectiveness gap: visible review activity does not necessarily prevent defects. Alphabetical ordering is therefore not a neutral interface default, but a structural feature shaping attention allocation, review coverage, and confidence in review outcomes. We propose context-aware file ordering, dependency-aware grouping, risk-aware prioritization, and per-file coverage indicators to make review attention more visible and actionable.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Md Shamimur Rahman, Zadia Codabux, Chanchal K. Roy. 2026-09-18. Does Order Matter? An Empirical Investigation into the Impact of File Ordering on Code Review Effectiveness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22610

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗