Benchmarking LLM for Code Smells Detection: OpenAI GPT-4.0 vs DeepSeek-V3
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Determining the most effective Large Language Model for code smell detection presents a complex challenge. This study introduces a structured methodology and evaluation matrix to tackle this issue, leveraging a curated dataset of code samples consistently annotated with known smells. The dataset spans four prominent programming languages Java, Python, JavaScript, and C++; allowing for cross language comparison. We benchmark two state of the art LLMs, OpenAI GPT 4.0 and DeepSeek-V3, using precision, recall, and F1 score as evaluation metrics. Our analysis covers three levels of detail: overall performance, category level performance, and individual code smell type performance. Additionally, we explore cost effectiveness by comparing the token based detection approach of GPT 4.0 with the pattern-matching techniques employed by DeepSeek V3. The study also includes a cost analysis relative to traditional static analysis tools such as SonarQube. The findings offer valuable guidance for practitioners in selecting an efficient, cost effective solution for automated code smell detection
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2025.
Builds on
12 of 26 references.
References · 12
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2024LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Aheadcited by 155
- 2023Analysis of ChatGPT on Source Codecited by 12
- 2025Token-Hungry, Yet Precise: DeepSeek R1 Highlights the Need for Multi-Step Reasoning Over Speed in MATHcited by 10
- 2023Coding by Design: GPT-4 empowers Agile Model Driven Developmentcited by 6
- 2024Evaluating Large Language Models in Detecting Test Smellscited by 6
- 2024How Propense Are Large Language Models at Producing Code Smells? A Benchmarking Studycited by 6
- 2023ChatGPT as a Software Development Bot: A Project-based Studycited by 5
- 2019Are SonarQube Rules Inducing Bugs?cited by 4
- 2022Code Smells in Machine Learning Systemscited by 3
- 2024A Catalog of Transformations to Remove Smells From Natural Language Testscited by 3
- 2018Code smellscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2026Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptionscited by 17
- 2025Are We SOLID Yet? An Empirical Study on Prompting LLMs to Detect Design Principle Violationscited by 1
- 2026Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoningcited by 1
- 2026Conversational AI for Rapid Scientific Prototyping: A Case Study on ESA's ELOPE Competitioncited by 0
- 2026DynamicsLLM: a Dynamic Analysis-based Tool for Generating Intelligent Execution Traces Using LLMs to Detect Android Behavioural Code Smellscited by 0
- 2026DynamicsLLM: a Dynamic Analysis-based Tool for Generating Intelligent Execution Traces Using LLMs to Detect Android Behavioural Code Smells12 Apr 2026
- 2026Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptions16 Feb 2026
- 2026Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning6 Feb 2026
- 2026Conversational AI for Rapid Scientific Prototyping: A Case Study on ESA's ELOPE Competition8 Jan 2026
- 2025Are We SOLID Yet? An Empirical Study on Prompting LLMs to Detect Design Principle Violations3 Sep 2025