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.

Language models have shown strong capabilities across a wide range of tasks in software engineering, such as code generation, yet they suffer from hallucinations. While hallucinations have been studied independently in natural language and code generation, their occurrence in tasks involving code changes which have a structurally complex and context-dependent format of code remains largely unexplored. This paper presents the first comprehensive analysis of hallucinations in two critical tasks involving code change to natural language generation: commit message generation and code review comment generation. We quantify the prevalence of hallucinations in recent language models and explore a range of metric-based approaches to automatically detect them. Our findings reveal that approximately 50% of generated code reviews and 20% of generated commit messages contain hallucinations. Whilst commonly used metrics are weak detectors on their own, combining multiple metrics substantially improves performance. Notably, model confidence and feature attribution metrics effectively contribute to hallucination detection, showing promise for inference-time detection.