Identifying Performance-Sensitive Configurations in Software Systems through Code Analysis with LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Configuration settings are essential for tailoring software behavior to meet specific performance requirements. However, incorrect configurations are widespread, and identifying those that impact system performance is challenging due to the vast number and complexity of possible settings. In this work, we present PerfSense, a lightweight framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to efficiently identify performance-sensitive configurations with minimal overhead. PerfSense employs LLM agents to simulate interactions between developers and performance engineers using advanced prompting techniques such as prompt chaining and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Our evaluation of seven open-source Java systems demonstrates that PerfSense achieves an average accuracy of 64.77% in classifying performance-sensitive configurations, outperforming both our LLM baseline (50.36%) and the previous state-of-the-art method (61.75%). Notably, our prompt chaining technique improves recall by 10% to 30% while maintaining similar precision levels. Additionally, a manual analysis of 362 misclassifications reveals common issues, including LLMs' misunderstandings of requirements (26.8%). In summary, PerfSense significantly reduces manual effort in classifying performance-sensitive configurations and offers valuable insights for future LLM-based code analysis research.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 14 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2024.
Builds on
14 of 59 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 13
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 742
- 2023AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviorscited by 598
- 2024Personal LLM Agents: Insights and Survey about the Capability, Efficiency and Securitycited by 260
- 2023An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generationcited by 194
- 2024Beyond Functional Correctness: Exploring Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Codecited by 107
- 2023No More Manual Tests? Evaluating and Improving ChatGPT for Unit Test Generationcited by 82
- 2024Face It Yourselves: An LLM-Based Two-Stage Strategy to Localize Configuration Errors via Logscited by 17
- 2020Leveraging Code Generation to Improve Code Retrieval and Summarization via Dual Learningcited by 16
- 2024How to Refactor this Code? An Exploratory Study on Developer-ChatGPT Refactoring Conversationscited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026PERFOPT-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents on Software Performance Optimization
- 2025PerfBench: Can Agents Resolve Real-World Performance Bugs?
- 2025The SWE-Bench Illusion: When State-of-the-Art LLMs Remember Instead of Reason
- 2026Beyond Strict Rules: Assessing the Effectiveness of Large Language Models for Code Smell Detection ↗
- 2025LLMSecConfig: An LLM-Based Approach for Fixing Software Container Misconfigurations
- 2025MANTRA: Enhancing Automated Method-Level Refactoring with Contextual RAG and Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration
- 2026Rethinking Code Performance Benchmarks for LLMs
- 2025A Taxonomy of Prompt Defects in LLM Systems