The Impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) on Code Review Process
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) have recently gained prominence in the field of software development, significantly boosting productivity and simplifying teamwork. Although prior studies have examined task-specific applications, the phase-specific effects of LLM assistance on the efficiency of code review processes remain underexplored. This research investigates the effect of GPT on GitHub pull request (PR) workflows, with a focus on reducing resolution time, optimizing phase-specific performance, and assisting developers. We curated a dataset of 25,473 PRs from 9,254 GitHub projects and identified GPT-assisted PRs using a semi-automated heuristic approach that combines keyword-based detection, regular expression filtering, and manual verification until achieving 95% labeling accuracy. We then applied statistical modeling, including multiple linear regression and Mann-Whitney U test, to evaluate differences between GPT-assisted and non-assisted PRs, both at the overall resolution level and across distinct review phases. Our research has revealed that early adoption of GPT can substantially boost the effectiveness of the PR process, leading to considerable time savings at various stages. Our findings suggest that GPT-assisted PRs reduced median resolution time by more than 60% (9 hours compared to 23 hours for non-assisted PRs). We discovered that utilizing GPT can reduce the review time by 33% and the waiting time before acceptance by 87%. Analyzing a sample dataset of 300 GPT-assisted PRs, we discovered that developers predominantly use GPT for code optimization (60%), bug fixing (26%), and documentation updates (12%). This research sheds light on the impact of the GPT model on the code review process, offering actionable insights for software teams seeking to enhance workflows and promote seamless collaboration.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgementcited by 4
- 2026The State of Generative AI in Software Development: Insights from Literature and a Developer Surveycited by 2
- 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositoriescited by 2
- 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories27 Apr 2026
- 2026The State of Generative AI in Software Development: Insights from Literature and a Developer Survey17 Mar 2026
- 2026Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgement28 Feb 2026