An Empirical Study on the Potential of LLMs in Automated Software Refactoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04444v1
• Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 05:35:55 GMT
• Title: An Empirical Study on the Potential of LLMs in Automated Software Refactoring
• Authors: Bo Liu, Yanjie Jiang, Yuxia Zhang, Nan Niu, Guangjie Li, Hui Liu,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) in automated software. We find that 13 out of the 176 solutions suggested by ChatGPT and 9 out of the 137 solutions suggested by Gemini were unsafe in that they either changed the functionality of the source code or introduced syntax errors.
• Score: 9.157968996300417
• License:
• Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs), make it potentially feasible to automatically refactor source code with LLMs. However, it remains unclear how well LLMs perform compared to human experts in conducting refactorings automatically and accurately. To fill this gap, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study to investigate the potential of LLMs in automated software refactoring, focusing on the identification of refactoring opportunities and the recommendation of refactoring solutions. We first construct a high-quality refactoring dataset comprising 180 real-world refactorings from 20 projects, and conduct the empirical study on the dataset. With the to-be-refactored Java documents as input, ChatGPT and Gemini identified only 28 and 7 respectively out of the 180 refactoring opportunities. However, explaining the expected refactoring subcategories and narrowing the search space in the prompts substantially increased the success rate of ChatGPT from 15.6% to 86.7%. Concerning the recommendation of refactoring solutions, ChatGPT recommended 176 refactoring solutions for the 180 refactorings, and 63.6% of the recommended solutions were comparable to (even better than) those constructed by human experts. However, 13 out of the 176 solutions suggested by ChatGPT and 9 out of the 137 solutions suggested by Gemini were unsafe in that they either changed the functionality of the source code or introduced syntax errors, which indicate the risk of LLM-based refactoring. To this end, we propose a detect-and-reapply tactic, called RefactoringMirror, to avoid such unsafe refactorings. By reapplying the identified refactorings to the original code using thoroughly tested refactoring engines, we can effectively mitigate the risks associated with LLM-based automated refactoring while still leveraging LLM's intelligence to obtain valuable refactoring recommendations.

Related papers

• Diagnosing Refactoring Dangers [0.7036032466145112]
  Existing behavior preservation analyses often lack comprehensive insights into rejections and do not provide actionable solutions. We developed a conceptual model to detect dangers, and created an Eclipse plugin based upon this model, called ReFD. ReFD evaluates a given code to identify if these potential risks are present, making them actual risks, and employs a verdict mechanism to reduce false positives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T14:39:37Z)
• Grounding by Trying: LLMs with Reinforcement Learning-Enhanced Retrieval [55.63711219190506]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with posing the right search queries. We introduce $underlineLe$arning to $underlineRe$trieve by $underlineT$rying (LeReT) LeReT can improve the absolute retrieval accuracy by up to 29% and the downstream generator evaluations by 17%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T17:02:54Z)
• Context-Enhanced LLM-Based Framework for Automatic Test Refactoring [10.847400457238423]
  Test smells arise from poor design practices and insufficient domain knowledge. We propose UTRefactor, a context-enhanced, LLM-based framework for automatic test in Java projects. We evaluate UTRefactor on 879 tests from six open-source Java projects, reducing the number of test smells from 2,375 to 265, achieving an 89% reduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T08:42:29Z)
• FactorLLM: Factorizing Knowledge via Mixture of Experts for Large Language Models [50.331708897857574]
  We introduce FactorLLM, a novel approach that decomposes well-trained dense FFNs into sparse sub-networks without requiring any further modifications. FactorLLM achieves comparable performance to the source model securing up to 85% model performance while obtaining over a 30% increase in inference speed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T16:45:16Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• EM-Assist: Safe Automated ExtractMethod Refactoring with LLMs [9.474820853051702]
  We introduce EM-Assist, an IntelliJ IDEA plugin that generates suggestions and subsequently validates, enhances, and ranks them. In our evaluation of 1,752 real-worlds that took place in open-source projects, EM-Assist's recall rate was 53.4% among its top-5 recommendations, compared to 39.4% for the previous best-in-class tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T00:32:04Z)
• Together We Go Further: LLMs and IDE Static Analysis for Extract Method Refactoring [9.882903340467815]
  Long methods that encapsulate multiple responsibilities within a single method are challenging to maintain. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been trained on large code corpora. LLMs are very effective for giving expert suggestions, yet they are unreliable: up to 76.3% of the suggestions are hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T05:01:03Z)
• Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling [56.75447441157628]
  Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) can improve the quality of large language model's (LLM) outputs by aligning them with human preferences. We propose a simple algorithm for aligning LLMs with human preferences inspired by growing batch reinforcement learning (RL), which we call Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) Our results show that ReST can substantially improve translation quality, as measured by automated metrics and human evaluation on machine translation benchmarks in a compute and sample-efficient manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T14:12:48Z)
• RefBERT: A Two-Stage Pre-trained Framework for Automatic Rename Refactoring [57.8069006460087]
  We study automatic rename on variable names, which is considered more challenging than other rename activities. We propose RefBERT, a two-stage pre-trained framework for rename on variable names. We show that the generated variable names of RefBERT are more accurate and meaningful than those produced by the existing method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-28T12:29:39Z)
• Do code refactorings influence the merge effort? [80.1936417993664]
  Multiple contributors frequently change the source code in parallel to implement new features, fix bugs, existing code, and make other changes. These simultaneous changes need to be merged into the same version of the source code. Studies show that 10 to 20 percent of all merge attempts result in conflicts, which require the manual developer's intervention to complete the process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T13:24:59Z)
• How We Refactor and How We Document it? On the Use of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms to Classify Refactoring Documentation [25.626914797750487]
  Refactoring is the art of improving the design of a system without altering its external behavior. This study categorizes commits into 3 categories, namely, Internal QA, External QA, and Code Smell Resolution, along with the traditional BugFix and Functional categories. To better understand our classification results, we analyzed commit messages to extract patterns that developers regularly use to describe their smells.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T20:33:17Z)

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.