State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive code generation capabilities but struggle with real-world software engineering tasks, such as revising source code to address code reviews, hindering their practical use. Code review comments are often implicit, ambiguous, and colloquial, requiring models to grasp both code and human intent. This challenge calls for evaluating large language models’ ability to bridge both technical and conversational contexts. While existing work has employed the automated code refinement (ACR) task to resolve these comments, current evaluation methods fall short, relying on text matching metrics that provide limited insight into model failures and remain susceptible to training data contamination.To address these limitations, we introduce a novel evaluation benchmark, CodeReviewQA that enables us to conduct fine-grained assessment of model capabilities and mitigate data contamination risks.In CodeReviewQA, we decompose the generation task of code refinement into three essential reasoning steps: change type recognition (CTR), change localisation (CL), and solution identification (SI). Each step is reformulated as multiple-choice questions with varied difficulty levels, enabling precise assessment of model capabilities, while mitigating data contamination risks. Our comprehensive evaluation spans 72 recently released large language models on 900 manually curated, high-quality examples across nine programming languages. Our results show that CodeReviewQA is able to expose specific model weaknesses in code review comprehension, disentangled from their generative automated code refinement results.

This paper describes the systems our team (AdelaideCyC) has developed for SemEval Task 12 (OffensEval 2020) to detect offensive language in social media. The challenge focuses on three subtasks – offensive language identification (subtask A), offense type identification (subtask B), and offense target identification (subtask C). Our team has participated in all the three subtasks. We have developed machine learning and deep learning-based ensembles of models. We have achieved F1-scores of 0.906, 0.552, and 0.623 in subtask A, B, and C respectively. While our performance scores are promising for subtask A, the results demonstrate that subtask B and C still remain challenging to classify.