Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models at Ericsson: An Experience Report

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2507.19115 v2 pith:Y7ZI2YVC submitted 2025-07-25 cs.SE cs.AI

Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models at Ericsson: An Experience Report

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords codereviewdescribedevelopersexperiencedanalysisautomatingericsson
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Code review is one of the primary means of assuring the quality of released software along with testing and static analysis. However, code review requires experienced developers who may not always have the time to perform an in-depth review of code. Thus, automating code review can help alleviate the cognitive burden on experienced software developers allowing them to focus on their primary activities of writing code to add new features and fix bugs. In this paper, we describe our experience in using Large Language Models towards automating the code review process in Ericsson. We describe the development of a lightweight tool using LLMs and static program analysis. We then describe our preliminary experiments with experienced developers in evaluating our code review tool and the encouraging results.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

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

    cs.SE 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Code review agents achieve 45.20% merge rate on PRs versus 68.37% for humans, with 60.2% of agent-only closed PRs showing 0-30% signal quality.