The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT in Automated Code Refinement: An Empirical Study
Open accessAbstract
Code review is an essential activity for ensuring the quality and maintainability of software projects. However, it is a time-consuming and often error-prone task that can significantly impact the development process. Recently, ChatGPT, a cutting-edge language model, has demonstrated impressive performance in various natural language processing tasks, suggesting its potential to automate code review processes. However, it is still unclear how well ChatGPT performs in code review tasks. To fill this gap, in this paper, we conduct the first empirical study to understand the capabilities of ChatGPT in code review tasks, specifically focusing on automated code refinement based on given code reviews. To conduct the study, we select the existing benchmark CodeReview and construct a new code review dataset with high quality. We use CodeReviewer, a state-of-the-art code review tool, as a baseline for comparison with ChatGPT. Our results show that ChatGPT outperforms CodeReviewer in code refinement tasks. Specifically, our results show that ChatGPT achieves higher EM and BLEU scores of 22.78 and 76.44 respectively, while the state-of-the-art method achieves only 15.50 and 62.88 on a high-quality code review dataset. We further identify the root causes for ChatGPT's underperformance and propose several strategies to mitigate these challenges. Our study provides insights into the potential of ChatGPT in automating the code review process, and highlights the potential research directions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The study uses the taxonomy of code changes proposed in prior studies as a starting point and refines it based on observation.
“We use the taxonomy of code changes proposed in prior studies [21, 74] as a starting point and refine the taxonomy based on our observation.”
From Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code-Change-Related Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
ChatGPT is the most widely adopted LLM in code generation in the literature.
“ChatGPT is the most widely adopted LLM in code generation in the literature [15, 16, 23, 40, 42, 63, 70]”
From An Empirical Study of the Non-Determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Empirical Study of the Non-Determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation
Ouyang, S., Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., & Wang, M. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3697010 · Cited by 258
Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code-Change-Related Tasks
Fan, L., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Lo, D., Xia, X., & Li, S. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3709358 · Cited by 41
Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code Change Related Tasks
Fan, L., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Lo, D., Xia, X., & Li, S. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 41
An Empirical Study of the Non-determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation
Ouyang, S., Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., & Wang, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.02828
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, Q., Cao, J., Xie, X., Liu, S., Li, X., Chen, B., & Peng, X.
- Affiliations
- Tianjin University (CN)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Singapore Management University (SG)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 1-13
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2309.08221
- OpenAlex
- W4391558404
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 52.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation
- National Research Foundation Singapore (NCRP25- P04-TAICeN)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61872262)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, automated code review, program refinement, large language models, software maintainability, code quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review