Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yuqi Zhong

dblp:384/0636 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0004-0308-5609ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software maintenance and evolution · 87% Program synthesis and code generation · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › code smell
code smell detection
0.812024
iSMELL: Assembling LLMs with Expert Toolsets for Code Smell Detection and Refactoring · ASE 2024
Software maintenance and evolution › refactoring
code smell refactoring
0.812024
iSMELL: Assembling LLMs with Expert Toolsets for Code Smell Detection and Refactoring · ASE 2024
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation with language models
0.212024
iSMELL: Assembling LLMs with Expert Toolsets for Code Smell Detection and Refactoring · ASE 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

mixture of experts · 0.8large language model · 0.8expert toolsets · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 iSMELL: Assembling LLMs with Expert Toolsets for Code Smell Detection and Refactoring
abstract
Detecting and refactoring code smells is challenging, laborious, and sustaining. Although large language models have demonstrated potential in identifying various types of code smells, they also have limitations such as input-output token restrictions, difficulty in accessing repository-level knowledge, and performing dynamic source code analysis. Existing learning-based methods or commercial expert toolsets have advantages in handling complex smells. They can analyze project structures and contextual information in-depth, access global code repositories, and utilize advanced code analysis techniques. However, these toolsets are often designed for specific types and patterns of code smells and can only address fixed smells, lacking flexibility and scalability. To resolve that problem, we propose iSMELL, an ensemble approach that employs various code smell detection toolsets via Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture for comprehensive code smell detection, and enhances the LLMs with the detection results from expert toolsets for refactoring those identified code smells. First, we train a MoE model that, based on input code vectors, outputs the most suitable expert tool for identifying each type of smell. Then, we select the recommended toolsets for code smell detection and obtain their results. Finally, we equip the prompts with the detection results from the expert toolsets, thereby enhancing the refactoring capability of LLMs for code with existing smells, enabling them to provide different solutions based on the type of smell. We evaluate our approach on detecting and refactoring three classical and complex code smells, i.e., Refused Bequest, God Class, and Feature Envy. The results show that, by adopting seven expert code smell toolsets, iSMELL achieved an average F1 score of 75.17% on code smell detection, outperforming LLMs baselines by an increase of 35.05% in F1 score. We further evaluate the code refactored by the enhanced LLM. The quantitative and human evaluation results show that iSMELL could improve code quality metrics and conduct satisfactory refactoring toward the identified code smells. We believe that our proposed solution could provide new insights into better leveraging LLMs and existing approaches to resolving complex software tasks.
Fangwen Mu, Lin Shi 0006, Zhaoqiang Guo, Kui Liu 0001, Weiguang Zhuang, Yuqi Zhong, Li Zhang 0029
ASE7