Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a systematic literature review of 50 peer-reviewed papers from 2020-2025 to analyze the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Empirical Software Engineering (ESE). The review identifies 69 LLM-assisted tasks, primarily focused on data processing and analysis within mining software repositories and controlled experiments. The study highlights that while LLMs improve efficiency and scalability, challenges remain regarding hallucinations, reproducibility, and human-centered integration, leading to a proposed research agenda for responsible LLM use in ESE.
LLMs in software engineering are mostly used for automation, not decision support, and suffer from reproducibility issues, revealing a critical gap in human-centered integration and transparency.
Context: Empirical Software Engineering (ESE) faces increasing challenges due to data scale, methodological complexity, and reproducibility concerns. Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to support empirical workflows, yet their use remains fragmented, with no comprehensive synthesis to guide responsible adoption. Aims: This study analyzes how LLMs are used in ESE, examining supported tasks, phases of the empirical lifecycle, integration into workflows, reported benefits and limitations, and the extent of reproducibility-related reporting. It also identifies gaps and future research directions. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed papers (2020-2025) across 12 leading software engineering venues, resulting in 50 primary studies analyzed through qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Results: We identified 69 LLM-assisted tasks, mainly in mining software repositories and controlled experiments, focusing on classification, filtering, and evaluation. LLMs are used across multiple phases but are concentrated in data processing and analysis. Their integration is largely automation-oriented, with limited decision-support use. Benefits emphasize efficiency and scalability, while limitations include hallucinations, inconsistency, prompt sensitivity, and reproducibility issues. Reporting practices are often incomplete. Conclusion: LLM use in ESE is growing but remains automation-driven, with gaps in human-centered integration and transparency. We outline implications and research agenda for responsible use.
