Paper Citation Record · LEDGER

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study

As of 18 August 2026, this Paper Citation Record lists 15 of 15 outbound references and 1 inbound Pith citation observation for arXiv:2505.16339.

A citation records a reference. It does not transfer a finding from one paper to another.

pith.paper-citation-record.v1
2505.16339 v1

Coverage vector

measured 15 of 15 reference resolution

Typed states for the displayed outbound observations.

Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.026358Z

measured 16 of 16 standing notices

One-hop event checks from named stored sources.

Source: scholarly_work_events, retraction_status_cache, observed 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00

measured 1 of 1 inbound itemization

Pith citing papers itemized under the disclosed page cap.

Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links, observed 2026-05-13T18:45:23.801303Z

measured 0 of 1 external citation measurements

A source-named dated measurement, never combined with another source.

Source: arxiv_reference, observed 2026-05-13T18:48:07.919233Z

Reference resolution

15 of 15 outbound references displayed

verified exact0
verified fuzzy7
unresolved8
parse uncertain0
malformed identifier0
metadata mismatch0

External citation measurements

No source-named external measurement is stored.

Outbound references

Observation ecc9deb1-bed5-4872-85ce-9e3722a16b72 · outbound

This paper cites GPT-4 Technical Report.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study GPT-4 Technical Report

Reference 1

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:20.814520Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 6a7717fa-c7d1-4970-8911-689b5efe7ee7 · outbound

This paper cites Qwen2.5 Technical Report.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Qwen2.5 Technical Report

Reference 2

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:20.860546Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 0eaac7b8-0794-4f04-9960-7360d4ae59e9 · outbound

This paper cites Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology

Reference 3

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:20.916984Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation c3e5dfa3-f705-4807-be7b-ad7fd6692382 · outbound

This paper cites Large language models for software engi- neering: A systematic literature review,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Large language models for software engi- neering: A systematic literature review,

Reference 4

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:20.968525Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 1761baef-4f25-4ef5-9973-190ae31b104c · outbound

This paper cites Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword?.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword?

Reference 5

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:21.048185Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 2d3f0138-deee-4205-bc0a-cea603a30d24 · outbound

This paper cites Improving automated code reviews: Learning from experience,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Improving automated code reviews: Learning from experience,

Reference 6

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:23.004160Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Observation 4e0cea4d-f4cd-42e4-8db6-f16585547bbf · outbound

This paper cites AI-assisted assessment of coding practices in modern code review,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study AI-assisted assessment of coding practices in modern code review,

Reference 7

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.882609Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Observation 12de46da-f97d-4d24-bf22-16f13f3b3d75 · outbound

This paper cites AI-powered code review with LLMs: Early results,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study AI-powered code review with LLMs: Early results,

Reference 8

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:21.254531Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 538814b6-4b3a-468b-9116-380fb42d54bc · outbound

This paper cites Human and Machine: How Software Engineers Perceive and Engage with AI-Assisted Code Reviews Compared to Their Peers.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Human and Machine: How Software Engineers Perceive and Engage with AI-Assisted Code Reviews Compared to Their Peers

Reference 9

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:21.350899Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 1c193770-92df-4517-b198-3dd99575be0f · outbound

This paper cites Towards automating code review activities,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Towards automating code review activities,

Reference 10

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.742001Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Observation 3af95178-0475-4471-b484-b63c6b775297 · outbound

This paper cites A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,

Reference 11

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:21.584736Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 8b87a2ba-6222-4870-8910-67aaa4e3d14e · outbound

This paper cites Using thematic analysis in psychology,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Using thematic analysis in psychology,

Reference 12

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.656603Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Observation 051484dd-6437-4be5-800b-9c9d93c507e5 · outbound

This paper cites Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews,

Reference 13

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.576323Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Observation 0147f581-69c8-49ff-b83f-5c459db70e7d · outbound

This paper cites Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling,

Reference 14

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.419131Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Observation 9ef9d6c8-e057-4e2f-a4e0-b7ffaaad5d27 · outbound

This paper cites How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability,.

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability,

Reference 15

Resolution: verified fuzzy; raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-07T15:05:22.299977Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.

Pith citing papers

Observation 3e918104-2b09-4054-95b8-3c9d90099e92 · inbound

From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests cites this paper.

From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study

Reference 3

Resolution: verified exact; arxiv_id, observed 2026-05-13T18:48:07.921114Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-18T06:34:40.430872+00:00.