mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LAURA: Enhancing Code Review Generation with Context-Enriched Retrieval-Augmented LLM

arXiv 2512.01356 ↗First posted 1 Dec 2025cs.SEcited by 8

On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG for code

Abstract (arXiv)

Code review is critical for ensuring software quality and maintainability. With the rapid growth in software scale and complexity, code review has become a bottleneck in the development process because of its time-consuming and knowledge-intensive nature and the shortage of experienced developers willing to review code. Several approaches have been proposed for automatically generating code reviews based on retrieval, neural machine translation, pre-trained models, or large language models (LLMs). These approaches mainly leverage historical code changes and review comments. However, a large amount of crucial information for code review, such as the context of code changes and prior review knowledge, has been overlooked. This paper proposes an LLM-based review knowledge-augmented, context-aware framework for code review generation, named LAURA. The framework integrates review exemplar retrieval, context augmentation, and systematic guidance to enhance the performance of ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek v3 in generating code review comments. Besides, given the extensive low-quality reviews in existing datasets, we also constructed a high-quality dataset. Experimental results show that for both models, LAURA generates review comments that are either completely correct or at least helpful to developers in 42.2% and 40.4% of cases, respectively, significantly outperforming SOTA baselines. Furthermore, our ablation studies demonstrate that all components of LAURA contribute positively to improving comment quality.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG for code, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 29 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Dec 2025.

Builds on

29 of 70 references.

References · 29

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  3. 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,537
  4. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,483
  5. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,222
  6. 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,185
  7. 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 890
  8. 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 612
  9. 2023CodeT5+: Open Code Large Language Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 327
  10. 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
  11. 2023Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization)cited by 72
  12. 2023ChatGPT Prompt Patterns for Improving Code Quality, Refactoring, Requirements Elicitation, and Software Designcited by 66
17 more
  1. 2023GPTScan: Detecting Logic Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts by Combining GPT with Program Analysiscited by 65
  2. 2022Using Pre-Trained Models to Boost Code Review Automationcited by 63
  3. 2021Towards Automating Code Review Activitiescited by 54
  4. 2023LLaMA-Reviewer: Advancing Code Review Automation with Large Language Models through Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuningcited by 47
  5. 2024Prompt Design and Engineering: Introduction and Advanced Methodscited by 45
  6. 2023Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT in Automated Code Refinement: An Empirical Studycited by 44
  7. 2024Large Language Model for Vulnerability Detection: Emerging Results and Future Directionscited by 44
  8. 2024Fine-Tuning and Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models-based Code Review Automationcited by 23
  9. 2024Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Artcited by 20
  10. 2022What Makes a Good Commit Message?cited by 19
  11. 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completioncited by 16
  12. 2024DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generationcited by 12
  13. 2020A ground-truth dataset and classification model for detecting bots in GitHub issue and PR commentscited by 10
  14. 2023What Makes a Code Review Useful to OpenDev Developers? An Empirical Investigationcited by 10
  15. 2020Recommending Stack Overflow Posts for Fixing Runtime Exceptions using Failure Scenario Matchingcited by 9
  16. 2024CommitBench: A Benchmark for Commit Message Generationcited by 8
  17. 2024RAG-Enhanced Commit Message Generationcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025When More Retrieval Hurts: Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Generation
  2. 2025Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study
  3. 2025Combining Large Language Models with Static Analyzers for Code Review Generation
  4. 2025Retrieval-Augmented Code Review Comment Generation
  5. 2026Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments
  6. 2025Leveraging Reward Models for Guiding Code Review Comment Generation
  7. 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Models
  8. 2025Fine-Tuning Multilingual Language Models for Code Review: An Empirical Study on Industrial C# Projects