CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-06-26

When AI Reviews Its Own Code: Recursive Self-Training Collapse in Code LLMs

Xinyuan Song, Zekun Cai, Liang Zhao

Recursive self-training can degrade neural generative models when generated data is reused without fresh human data or external quality control. We study this risk in code LLMs, where AI-generated code can enter real repositories, later become training data, and create a repository-scale self-training loop. While software development traditionally interrupts this loop through pull-request review, tests, compilation, and human approval, AI coding tools now produce code faster than humans can review it, and code review itself is increasingly automated by AI systems. We therefore compare three recursive fine-tuning regimes: no review, Human-gate review using model-independent filters such as compilation and static quality checks, and AI-self-gate review using the code LLM's own signals such as perplexity and binary self-scoring. Across multiple code LLMs and benchmarks, no review collapses fastest, Human-gate filters slow but do not stop collapse, and AI-self-gate filters can look strong early but later lose their filtering effect. In the clearest case, the binary self-gate enters a rubber-stamp regime where acceptance scores rise while benchmark correctness falls. We explain this behavior by formulating review as gated distributional reweighting, proving that AI self-gating degenerates to ungated self-training under a self-confirming acceptance condition, and giving a spectral analysis of representation-level covariance concentration under recursive retraining. These results suggest that stable recursive code LLM training requires exogenous verification rather than model-coupled self-review.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-05

Obey, Diverge, Collapse: Blind Obedience to Incorrect Instructions Drives Code LLMs to Irrecoverable Code Semantic Collapse

Raj Jaiswal, Anany Singh Divy, Savar Bhasin, Adi Bajpai, Tanuja Ganu, Rajiv Ratn Shah

Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks. We evaluate co…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-13

Self-Improving AI Coding Agents Through Accumulated Behavioral Rules: A Closed-Loop Framework

Aditya Aggarwal, Nahid Farhady Ghalaty

LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback. We present a closed-loop framework in which every accepted review comment is codified as a persistent behavioral rule, progr…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-08

3100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse

Shyam Agarwal, Courtney Miller, Christian Kästner, Bogdan Vasilescu

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-03

Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild

Hong Yi Lin, Mingzhao Liang, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Kla Tantithamthavorn

Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirica…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-14

Code-MUE: Measuring Code LLMs' Uncertainty through Execution-based Semantic Interaction Graphs

Xiaoning Ren, Yinxing Xue, Lei Ma, Yuheng Huang

As Code Large Language Models (LLMs) become central to modern software engineering, their inherent stochasticity poses significant real-world risks, where even minor errors can lead to severe functional, security, or safety consequences. Reliable automation, therefore, demands th…

View free PDFSource page