Utku Boran Torun

Utku Boran Torun, Veli Karakaya, Ali Babar et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in software engineering (SE) tools, powering applications such as code generation, automated code review, and bug triage. As these LLM-based AI for Software Engineering (AI4SE) systems transition from experimental prototypes to widely deployed tools, the question of what it means to evaluate their behavior reliably has become both critical and unanswered. Unlike traditional SE or machine learning systems, LLM-based tools often produce open-ended, natural language outputs, admit multiple valid answers, and exhibit non-deterministic behavior across runs. These characteristics fundamentally challenge long-standing evaluation assumptions such as the existence of a single ground truth, deterministic outputs, and objective correctness. In this paper, we examine LLM evaluation as a general, task-dependent concept through the lens of SE tasks. We discuss why reliable evaluation is essential for trust, adoption, and meaningful assessment of LLM-based tools, summarize the current state of evaluation practices, and highlight their limitations in realistic AI4SE settings. We then identify key challenges facing current approaches, including the absence of stable ground truth, subjectivity and multi-dimensional quality, evaluation instability due to non-determinism, limitations of automated and model-based evaluation, and fragmentation of evaluation practices. Finally, we outline future directions aimed at advancing LLM evaluation toward more robust, scalable, and trustworthy methodologies, to stimulate discussion on principled evaluation practices that can keep pace with the growing role of LLMs in SE.

Veli Karakaya, Utku Boran Torun, Baykal Mehmet Uçar et al.

Automated code review (ACR) bots are increasingly used in industrial software development to assist developers during pull request (PR) review. As adoption grows, a key challenge is how to evaluate the usefulness of bot-generated comments reliably and at scale. In practice, such evaluation often relies on developer actions and annotations that are shaped by contextual and organizational factors, complicating their use as objective ground truth. We examine the feasibility and limitations of automating the evaluation of LLM-powered ACR bots in an industrial setting. We analyze an industrial dataset from Beko comprising 2,604 bot-generated PR comments, each labeled by software engineers as fixed/wontFix. Two automated evaluation approaches, G-Eval and an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline, are applied using both binary decisions and a 0-4 Likert-scale formulation, enabling a controlled comparison against developer-provided labels. Across Gemini-2.5-pro, GPT-4.1-mini, and GPT-5.2, both evaluation strategies achieve only moderate alignment with human labels. Agreement ratios range from approximately 0.44 to 0.62, with noticeable variation across models and between binary and Likert-scale formulations, indicating sensitivity to both model choice and evaluation design. Our findings highlight practical limitations in fully automating the evaluation of ACR bot comments in industrial contexts. Developer actions such as resolving or ignoring comments reflect not only comment quality, but also contextual constraints, prioritization decisions, and workflow dynamics that are difficult to capture through static artifacts. Insights from a follow-up interview with a software engineering director further corroborate that developer labeling behavior is strongly influenced by workflow pressures and organizational constraints, reinforcing the challenges of treating such signals as objective ground truth.

Utku Boran Torun, Mehmet Taha Demircan, Mahmut Furkan Gön et al.

Traditional bug tracking systems rely heavily on manual reporting, reproduction, triaging, and resolution, each carried out by different stakeholders such as end users, customer support, developers, and testers. This division of responsibilities requires significant coordination and widens the communication gap between non-technical users and technical teams, slowing the process from bug discovery to resolution. Moreover, current systems are highly asynchronous; users often wait hours or days for a first response, delaying fixes and contributing to frustration. This paper examines the evolution of bug tracking, from early paper-based reporting to today's web-based and SaaS platforms. Building on this trajectory, we propose an AI-powered bug tracking framework that augments existing tools with intelligent, large language model (LLM)-driven automation. Our framework addresses two main challenges: reducing time-to-fix and minimizing human overhead. Users report issues in natural language, while AI agents refine reports, attempt reproduction, and request missing details. Reports are then classified, invalid ones resolved through no-code fixes, and valid ones localized and assigned to developers. LLMs also generate candidate patches, with human oversight ensuring correctness. By integrating automation into each phase, our framework accelerates response times, improves collaboration, and strengthens software maintenance practices for a more efficient, user-centric future.