Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15385v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 03:25:28 GMT
• Title: Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by automatically generating natural language descriptions from source code.<n>This systematic review literature consolidates existing evidence, categorizes prompting paradigms, examines their effectiveness, and identifies gaps to guide future research and practical adoption.
• Score: 4.238464304669881
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Software documentation is essential for program comprehension, developer onboarding, code review, and long-term maintenance. Yet producing quality documentation manually is time-consuming and frequently yields incomplete or inconsistent results. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by automatically generating natural language descriptions from source code, helping developers understand code more efficiently, facilitating maintenance, and supporting downstream activities such as defect localization and commit message generation. However, the effectiveness of LLMs in documentation tasks critically depends on how they are prompted. Properly structured instructions can substantially improve model performance, making prompt engineering-the design of input prompts to guide model behavior-a foundational technique in LLM-based software engineering. Approaches such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, and zero-shot learning show promise for code summarization, yet current research remains fragmented. There is limited understanding of which prompting strategies work best, for which models, and under what conditions. Moreover, evaluation practices vary widely, with most studies relying on overlap-based metrics that may not capture semantic quality. This systematic literature review consolidates existing evidence, categorizes prompting paradigms, examines their effectiveness, and identifies gaps to guide future research and practical adoption.

Related papers

• Beyond the Traceback: Using LLMs for Adaptive Explanations of Programming Errors [52.619793817715326]
  We present a multi-stage crowdsourced study evaluating skill-targeted, LLM-generated Python error messages.<n>We show that while LLM-rewritten messages significantly improved subjective evaluations, these perceived gains did not translate into statistically significant improvements in objective debug performance.<n>This highlights a critical human-AI complementarity gap: explanations that feel better to users do not necessarily make them more effective debuggers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T09:14:28Z)
• Guidelines to Prompt Large Language Models for Code Generation: An Empirical Characterization [82.29178197694819]
  We derive and evaluate development-specific prompt optimization guidelines.<n>We use an iterative, test-driven approach to automatically refine code generation prompts.<n>We conduct an assessment with 50 practitioners, who report their usage of the elicited prompt improvement patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T15:01:42Z)
• Readability-Robust Code Summarization via Meta Curriculum Learning [53.44612630063336]
  In the real world, code is often poorly structured or obfuscated, significantly degrading model performance.<n>We propose RoFTCodeSum, a novel fine-tuning method that enhances the robustness of code summarization against poorly readable code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T02:38:24Z)
• From Code Foundation Models to Agents and Applications: A Practical Guide to Code Intelligence [150.3696990310269]
  Large language models (LLMs) have transformed automated software development by enabling direct translation of natural language descriptions into functional code.<n>We provide a comprehensive synthesis and practical guide (a series of analytic and probing experiments) about code LLMs.<n>We analyze the code capability of the general LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, LLaMA) and code-specialized LLMs (StarCoder, Code LLaMA, DeepSeek-Coder, and QwenCoder)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-23T17:09:34Z)
• Improving Large Language Models Function Calling and Interpretability via Guided-Structured Templates [56.73907811047611]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning and tool-use capabilities.<n>LLMs often fail in real-world tool-interactions due to incorrect parameterization, poor tool selection, or misinterpretation of user intent.<n>We introduce a curriculum-inspired framework that leverages structured reasoning templates to guide LLMs through more deliberate step-by-step instructions for generating function callings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T17:55:14Z)
• Code Review Without Borders: Evaluating Synthetic vs. Real Data for Review Recommendation [37.86790434630698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are used to translate code changes from well-resourced languages into equivalent changes in underrepresented or emerging languages.<n>We compare the performance of these models against models trained on real labelled data.<n>This approach provides a scalable pathway to extend automated code review capabilities to rapidly evolving technology stacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T05:17:14Z)
• On LLM-Assisted Generation of Smart Contracts from Business Processes [0.08192907805418582]
  Large language models (LLMs) have changed the reality of how software is produced.<n>We present an exploratory study to investigate the use of LLMs for generating smart contract code from business process descriptions.<n>Our results show that LLM performance falls short of the perfect reliability required for smart contract development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T20:39:45Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• Towards Leveraging Large Language Model Summaries for Topic Modeling in Source Code [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable program comprehension capabilities.<n> transformer-based topic modeling techniques offer effective ways to extract semantic information from text.<n>This paper proposes and explores a novel approach that combines these strengths to automatically identify meaningful topics in a corpus of Python programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T10:30:40Z)
• CodeIF: Benchmarking the Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models for Code Generation [20.013757490442064]
  We introduce CodeIF, the first benchmark designed to assess the abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to adhere to task-oriented instructions.<n>CodeIF encompasses a broad range of tasks, including function synthesis, algorithmic instructions, and code explanation.<n>We conduct extensive experiments with LLMs, analyzing their strengths and limitations in meeting the demands of these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T14:19:49Z)
• A Survey on Evaluating Large Language Models in Code Generation Tasks [30.256255254277914]
  This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current methods and metrics used to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation tasks.<n>With the rapid growth in demand for automated software development, LLMs have demonstrated significant potential in the field of code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T12:56:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.