AI 中文总结
该研究提出TrustChain-Review框架，结合区块链、博弈论与风险自适应治理，通过模拟验证其在AI辅助代码审查中平衡可信性与成本的效果，为不同风险场景提供治理方案。
AI 中文摘要
背景：AI辅助软件开发可加快编码与审查速度，但也增加了问责制建立的难度。开发者可能提交未充分验证的代码，审查者可能在检查有限的情况下批准变更，而集中式声誉记录可能难以审计。目标：本研究引入TrustChain-Review框架，该框架结合可验证证据、策略性激励和风险敏感型治理，以支持更可信的代码审查。方法：该框架包括基于区块链的证据层、针对开发者、审查者和平台的三方博弈论模型，以及在预期收益证明其成本合理时应用更强治理的规则。评估使用经Diff Quality Estimation数据集校准的受控模拟，在30次独立运行中比较六种治理配置，指标包括声誉准确率、信任收敛、恶意审查检测、表面审查检测、平台净效用、治理成本和成本效益。结果：全证据配置产生最强的声誉、信任和检测结果，但治理成本最高；风险自适应配置通过选择性应用更强控制降低了成本并提高了成本效益，尽管其信任和检测结果低于全证据设置。结论：基于证据的强治理最适用于高风险或审计敏感的变更；对于常规或低风险贡献，选择性治理在可信性与运营成本之间提供了更实用的平衡。
英文摘要
Context: AI-assisted software development can speed up coding and review, but it also makes accountability harder to establish. Developers may submit insufficiently verified code, reviewers may approve changes with limited inspection, and centralized reputation records may be difficult to audit. Objectives: This study introduces TrustChain-Review, a framework that combines verifiable evidence, strategic incentives, and risk-sensitive governance to support more trustworthy code review. Methods: The framework includes a blockchain-based evidence layer, a three-player game-theoretic model for developers, reviewers, and the platform, and a rule that applies stronger governance when the expected benefit justifies its cost. The evaluation uses a controlled simulation calibrated with the Diff Quality Estimation dataset. Six governance configurations are compared over 30 independent runs using reputation accuracy, trust convergence, malicious-review detection, superficial-review detection, net platform utility, governance cost, and cost-efficiency. Results: The full-evidence configuration produces the strongest reputation, trust, and detection results, but it also has the highest governance cost. The risk-adaptive configuration lowers this cost and improves cost-efficiency by applying stronger controls selectively, although its trust and detection results are lower than those of the full-evidence setting. Conclusion: Strong evidence-based governance is most appropriate for high-risk or audit-sensitive changes. For routine or lower-risk contributions, selective governance offers a more practical balance between trustworthiness and operational cost.
Comments24 pages, 3 figures, 10 tables
