mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating LLMs Effectiveness in Detecting and Correcting Test Smells: An Empirical Study

arXiv 2506.07594 ↗First posted 9 Jun 2025cs.SEcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Test smells indicate poor development practices in test code, reducing maintainability and reliability. While developers often struggle to prevent or refactor these issues, existing tools focus primarily on detection rather than automated refactoring. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in code understanding and transformation, but their ability to both identify and refactor test smells remains underexplored. We evaluated GPT-4-Turbo, LLaMA 3 70B, and Gemini-1.5 Pro on Python and Java test suites, using PyNose and TsDetect for initial smell detection, followed by LLM-driven refactoring. Gemini achieved the highest detection accuracy (74.35% Python, 80.32% Java), while LLaMA was lowest. All models could refactor smells, but effectiveness varied, sometimes introducing new smells. Gemini also improved test coverage, unlike GPT-4 and LLaMA, which often reduced it. These results highlight LLMs' potential for automated test smell refactoring, with Gemini as the strongest performer, though challenges remain across languages and smell types.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.