PreprintCited by 0

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

Baltes, Sebastian, Angermeir, Florian, Arora, Chetan, Barón, Marvin Muñoz, Chen, Chunyang, Böhme, Lukas, Calefato, Fabio, Ernst, Neil, Falessi, Davide, Fitzgerald, Brian, Fucci, Davide, He, Junda, Treude, Christoph, Kalinowski, Marcos, Lambiase, Stefano, Russo, Daniel, Lungu, Mircea, Montes, Cristina Martinez, Prechelt, Lutz, Ralph, Paul, van Tonder, Rijnard, Wagner, Stefan·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in software engineering (SE) research and practice, yet their non-determinism, opaque training data, and rapidly evolving models threaten the reproducibility and replicability of empirical studies. We address this challenge through a collaborative effort of 22 researchers, presenting a taxonomy of seven study types that organizes how LLMs are used in SE research, together with eight guidelines for designing and reporting such studies. Each guideline distinguishes requirements (must) from recommendations (should) and is contextualized by the study types it applies to. Our guidelines recommend that researchers: (1) declare LLM usage and role; (2) report model versions, configurations, and customizations; (3) document the system and prompt design beyond the model; (4) report session traces, i.e., interaction logs and runtime traces; (5) use suitable baselines, benchmarks, and metrics; (6) include an open LLM as a baseline; (7) validate LLM outputs against human judgment; and (8) articulate limitations and mitigations. We complement the guidelines with an applicability matrix mapping guidelines to study types and a reporting checklist for authors and reviewers. We maintain the study types and guidelines online as a living resource for the community to use and shape (llm-guidelines$.$org).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.15503

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Baltes, S., Angermeir, F., Arora, C., Barón, M. M., Chen, C., Böhme, L., Calefato, F., Ernst, N., Falessi, D., Fitzgerald, B., Fucci, D., He, J., Treude, C., Kalinowski, M., Lambiase, S., Russo, D., Lungu, M., Montes, C. M., Prechelt, L., Ralph, P., van Tonder, R., & Wagner, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
References
1
Type
Preprint

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2508.15503
The paper
Baltes, S., Angermeir, F., Arora, C., Barón, M. M., Chen, C., Böhme, L., Calefato, F., Ernst, N., Falessi, D., Fitzgerald, B., Fucci, D., He, J., Treude, C., Kalinowski, M., Lambiase, S., Russo, D., Lungu, M., Montes, C. M., Prechelt, L., . . . Wagner, S. (2025). Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2508.15503