MoveMethod is a hallmark refactoring. Despite a plethora of research tools that recommend which methods to move and where, these recommendations do not align with how expert developers perform Movemethod. Given the extensive training of Large Language Models and their reliance upon naturalness of code, they should expertly recommend which methods are misplaced in a given class and which classes are better hosts. Our formative study of 2016 LLM recommendations revealed that LLMs give expert suggestions, yet they are unreliable: up to 80 % of the suggestions are hallucinations. We introduce the first LLM fully powered assistant for MoveMethod refactoring that automates its whole end-to-end lifecycle, from recommendation to execution. We designed novel solutions that automatically filter LLM hallucinations using static analysis from IDEs and a novel workflow that requires LLMs to be self-consistent, critique, and rank refactoring suggestions. As MoveMethod refactoring requires global, project-level reasoning, we solved the limited context size of LLMs by employing refactoring-aware retrieval augment generation (RAG). Our approach, MM-assist, synergistically combines the strengths of the LLM, IDE, static analysis, and semantic relevance. In our thorough, multi-methodology empirical evaluation, we compare MM-assist with the previous state-of-the-art approaches. MMASSIST significantly outperforms them: (i) on a benchmark widely used by other researchers, our Recall@1 and Recall@3 show a$1.7 x$improvement; (ii) on a corpus of 210 recent refactorings from Open-source software, our Recall rates improve by at least$\mathbf{2. 4 x}$. Lastly, we conducted a user study with$\mathbf{3 0}$experienced participants who used MM-ASSIST to refactor their own code for one week. They rated$\mathbf{8 2. 8 \%}$of MM-aSSIST recommendations positively. This shows that MM-ASSIST is both effective and useful.

Long methods that encapsulate multiple responsibilities within a single method are challenging to maintain. Choosing which statements to extract into new methods has been the target of many research tools. Despite steady improvements, these tools often fail to generate refactorings that align with developers' preferences and acceptance criteria. Given that Large Language Models (LLMs) have been trained on large code corpora, if we harness their familiarity with the way developers form functions, we could suggest refactorings that developers are likely to accept. In this paper, we advance the science and practice of refactoring by synergistically combining the insights of LLMs with the power of IDEs to perform Extract Method (EM). Our formative study on 1752 EM scenarios revealed that LLMs are very effective for giving expert suggestions, yet they are unreliable: up to 76.3% of the suggestions are hallucinations. We designed a novel approach that removes hallucinations from the candidates suggested by LLMs, then further enhances and ranks suggestions based on static analysis techniques from program slicing, and finally leverages the IDE to execute refactorings correctly. We implemented this approach in an IntelliJ IDEA plugin called EM-Assist. We empirically evaluated EM-Assist on a diverse corpus that replicates 1752 actual refactorings from open-source projects. We found that EM-Assist outperforms previous state of the art tools: EM-Assist suggests the developer-performed refactoring in 53.4% of cases, improving over the recall rate of 39.4% for previous best-in-class tools. Furthermore, we conducted firehouse surveys with 16 industrial developers and suggested refactorings on their recent commits. 81.3% of them agreed with the recommendations provided by EM-Assist. This shows the usefulness of our approach and ushers us into a new era when LLMs become effective AI assistants for refactoring.