arXiv (All)
open access
Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review
Code review is where AI-authored pull requests (AIPRs) must earn reviewer trust before integration, yet it is unclear whether reviewers apply the same criteria used for human-authored pull requests (HPRs). We surveyed 239 practitioners from 31 countries using matched HPR and AIPR questions to compar
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review#1348920
- These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests#155390
- Who Pays the Review Cost? Triage, Fairness, and Accountability in AI-authored Pull Requests#1257963
- Who Pays the Review Cost? Triage, Fairness, and Accountability in AI-authored Pull Requests#1248106
- Predicting Acceptance and Review Effort in Human and Agent Pull Requests#366348
Record · ID 1356480
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive