mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Fine-Tuning and Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models-based Code Review Automation

arXiv 2402.00905 ↗First posted 1 Feb 2024cs.SEcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Context: The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked significant interest in leveraging their capabilities for automating code review processes. Prior studies often focus on developing LLMs for code review automation, yet require expensive resources, which is infeasible for organizations with limited budgets and resources. Thus, fine-tuning and prompt engineering are the two common approaches to leveraging LLMs for code review automation. Objective: We aim to investigate the performance of LLMs-based code review automation based on two contexts, i.e., when LLMs are leveraged by fine-tuning and prompting. Fine-tuning involves training the model on a specific code review dataset, while prompting involves providing explicit instructions to guide the model's generation process without requiring a specific code review dataset. Method: We leverage model fine-tuning and inference techniques (i.e., zero-shot learning, few-shot learning and persona) on LLMs-based code review automation. In total, we investigate 12 variations of two LLMs-based code review automation (i.e., GPT- 3.5 and Magicoder), and compare them with the Guo et al.'s approach and three existing code review automation approaches. Results: The fine-tuning of GPT 3.5 with zero-shot learning helps GPT-3.5 to achieve 73.17% -74.23% higher EM than the Guo et al.'s approach. In addition, when GPT-3.5 is not fine-tuned, GPT-3.5 with few-shot learning achieves 46.38% - 659.09% higher EM than GPT-3.5 with zero-shot learning. Conclusions: Based on our results, we recommend that (1) LLMs for code review automation should be fine-tuned to achieve the highest performance; and (2) when data is not sufficient for model fine-tuning (e.g., a cold-start problem), few-shot learning without a persona should be used for LLMs for code review automation.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 13; 2026: 7.

23 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Breaking the Exploration Bottleneck: Rubric-Scaffolded Reinforcement Learning for General LLM Reasoningcited by 63
  2. 2024Human-In-the-Loop Software Development Agentscited by 42
  3. 2024The Future of AI-Driven Software Engineeringcited by 23
  4. 2024CRScore: Grounding Automated Evaluation of Code Review Comments in Code Claims and Smellscited by 8
  5. 2025LAURA: Enhancing Code Review Generation with Context-Enriched Retrieval-Augmented LLMcited by 8
  6. 2026RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassiancited by 6
  7. 2025Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models at Ericsson: An Experience Reportcited by 5
  8. 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Codecited by 5
  9. 2025Code Readability in the Age of Large Language Models: An Industrial Case Study from Atlassiancited by 4
  10. 2025Supervised Fine-Tuning LLMs to Behave as Pedagogical Agents in Programming Educationcited by 4
  11. 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Modelscited by 3
  12. 2026Measuring and Exploiting Contextual Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Reviewcited by 3
11 more
  1. 2025Unlocking the Potential of Past Research: Using Generative AI to Reconstruct Healthcare Simulation Modelscited by 2
  2. 2025LLM-as-a-Fuzzy-Judge: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models as a Clinical Evaluation Judge with Fuzzy Logiccited by 2
  3. 2025Refactoring with LLMs: Bridging Human Expertise and Machine Understandingcited by 2
  4. 2025A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis of Custom GPTs' Vulnerabilities in the OpenAI Ecosystemcited by 1
  5. 2025A Blueprint for AI-Driven Software Quality: Integrating LLMs with Established Standardscited by 1
  6. 2025MemoCoder: Automated Function Synthesis using LLM-Supported Agentscited by 1
  7. 2026Understanding the Limits of Automated Evaluation for Code Review Bots in Practicecited by 1
  8. 2026When Does a Second Model Help? Cross-Model Review in LLM Verificationcited by 1
  9. 2025Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models with Symbolic Reasoningcited by 0
  10. 2026Enhancing Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmented Generation for Software Testing and Inspection Automationcited by 0
  11. 2026Evaluating the Impact of Explainable AI on Trust in AI-Assisted Code Reviewcited by 0