Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2402.10398

Prompt Learning for Multi-Label Code Smell Detection: A Promising Approach

Abstract

Code smells indicate the potential problems of software quality so that developers can identify refactoring opportunities by detecting code smells. State-of-the-art approaches leverage heuristics, machine learning, and deep learning to detect code smells. However, existing approaches have not fully explored the potential of large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we propose \textit{PromptSmell}, a novel approach based on prompt learning for detecting multi-label code smell. Firstly, code snippets are acquired by traversing abstract syntax trees. Combined code snippets with natural language prompts and mask tokens, \textit{PromptSmell} constructs the input of LLMs. Secondly, to detect multi-label code smell, we leverage a label combination approach by converting a multi-label problem into a multi-classification problem. A customized answer space is added to the word list of pre-trained language models, and the probability distribution of intermediate answers is obtained by predicting the words at the mask positions. Finally, the intermediate answers are mapped to the target class labels by a verbalizer as the final classification result. We evaluate the effectiveness of \textit{PromptSmell} by answering six research questions. The experimental results demonstrate that \textit{PromptSmell} obtains an improvement of 11.17\% in $precision_{w}$ and 7.4\% in $F1_{w}$ compared to existing approaches.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Haiyang Liu, Yang Zhang, Vidya Saikrishna, Quanquan Tian, Kun Zheng. 2024-02-16. Prompt Learning for Multi-Label Code Smell Detection: A Promising Approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10398

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE