Agentic LMs: Hunting Down Test Smells

April 09, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› IEEE Software

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Rian Melo, Pedro SimΓ΅es, Rohit Gheyi, Marcelo d'Amorim, MΓ‘rcio Ribeiro, Gustavo Soares, Eduardo Almeida, Elvys Soares arXiv ID 2504.07277 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 2 Venue IEEE Software Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Test smells reduce test suite reliability and complicate maintenance. While many methods detect test smells, few support automated removal, and most rely on static analysis or machine learning. This study evaluates models with relatively small parameter counts - Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-2-9B, DeepSeek-R1-14B, and Phi-4-14B - for their ability to detect and refactor test smells using agent-based workflows. We assess workflows with one, two, and four agents over 150 instances of 5 common smells from real-world Java projects. Our approach generalizes to Python, Golang, and JavaScript. All models detected nearly all instances, with Phi-4-14B achieving the best refactoring accuracy (pass@5 of 75.3%). Phi-4-14B with four-agents performed within 5% of proprietary LLMs (single-agent). Multi-agent setups outperformed single-agent ones in three of five smell types, though for Assertion Roulette, one agent sufficed. We submitted pull requests with Phi-4-14B-generated code to open-source projects and six were merged.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted