cs.SEAug 27, 2026

From Static to Dynamic: Benchmarking Real-World Code Review with MCR-Bench

Authors: Dewu Zheng, Yanlin Wang, Xiwen Wang, Kefeng Duan, Hongyu Zhang, Xilin Liu, Yuchi Ma, Zibin Zheng

Organizations: Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai Key Laboratory of Trusted Large Language Models, Zhuhai, China · Chongqing University, Chongqing, China · Huawei Cloud Computing Technologies Co., Ltd., Dongguan, China

Abstract

In real-world software development, code review typically involves iterative interactions between developers and reviewers to improve software quality, making the process costly and time-consuming. Although recent work explores large language models (LLMs) for automated code review, most approaches oversimplify code review into a single-round, static decision task, which fails to capture the multi-round interactive nature and the complex problem-solving processes inherent in realistic review scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MCR-Bench, the first defect state-aware benchmark designed for realistic multi-round code review. MCR-Bench covers five commonly-used programming languages and consists of 2,269 real-world multi-round code review tasks, each of which is annotated with fine-grained defect information and cross-round state labels. Each task in MCR-Bench is equipped with fine-grained defect metadata (e.g., description, type, severity) alongside dynamic state annotations, capturing the complete evolutionary trajectory of a defect throughout the multi-round process. We obtain several findings through extensive experiments on MCR-Bench with mainstream LLMs. (1) Limited overall capability: experiments reveal that mainstream LLMs exhibit limited overall performance in defect detection and defect lifecycle state tracking, with performance degrading significantly as the number of interaction rounds increases; (2) Defect-sensitive performance: LLMs' performance varies substantially across different defect types and severity levels, with semantically complex or low-salience defects being significantly more likely to be missed; (3) Underlying Failure Mechanisms: our in-depth error analysis dissects the distinct drivers of false positives and false negatives, revealing critical weaknesses such as cross-round temporal misalignment and inadequate long-range memory.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents

    Mar 10, 2026Kristen Pereira, Neelabh Sinha, Rajat Ghosh +1Automated Code ReviewAI Agent Evaluation

  2. Can Agentic Code Review Catch Vulnerabilities Before They Are Merged?

    Oct 24, 2026Yihan Yang, Chenyuan Yang, Zijie Zhao +5AI Agent Security BenchmarksAutomated Code Review

  3. CIVER: Causal Intervention Verification for Reliable Code Review

    Oct 26, 2026Xinyuan Song, Hasibul Haque, Jay Somasundaram +3Automated Code ReviewLLM Agent Reliability