mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CodeTaste: Can LLMs Generate Human-Level Code Refactorings?

arXiv 2603.04177 ↗First posted 4 Mar 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.LGcited by 8

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM coding agents can generate working code, but their solutions often accumulate complexity, duplication, and architectural debt. Human developers address such issues through refactoring: behavior-preserving program transformations that improve structure and maintainability. We investigate whether agents (i) can execute refactorings reliably and (ii) identify the refactorings that human developers actually chose in real codebases. To this end, we construct CodeTaste, a benchmark mined from large multi-file open-source refactorings. To score solutions, we combine repository test suites that measure functional correctness with tailored static checks that verify removal of undesired and introduction of desired code patterns using dataflow reasoning. Our results show a clear gap: agents perform well at implementing refactorings that are specified in detail, but often fail to discover the human refactoring choices when given a focus area for changes. A propose-then-implement decomposition improves alignment, and selecting the best-aligned proposal before implementation can yield further gains. CodeTaste provides an evaluation target and a potential preference signal for aligning coding agents with human refactoring decisions in realistic codebases. We release the benchmark, leaderboard, and code.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2026.

Builds on

13 of 42 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025SWE-rebench: An Automated Pipeline for Task Collection and Decontaminated Evaluation of Software Engineering Agents26 May
  2. 2024SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents18 Jun

Other references · 11

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  2. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  3. 2025FEA-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Repository-Level Code Generation for Feature Implementationcited by 57
  4. 2023Can It Edit? Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Follow Code Editing Instructionscited by 46
  5. 2025RefactorBench: Evaluating Stateful Reasoning in Language Agents Through Codecited by 28
  6. 2023Refactoring Programs Using Large Language Models with Few-Shot Examplescited by 27
  7. 2024An Empirical Study on the Code Refactoring Capability of Large Language Modelscited by 19
  8. 2025SecureVibeBench: Benchmarking Secure Vibe Coding of AI Agents via Reconstructing Vulnerability-Introducing Scenarioscited by 11
  9. 2026SWE-Refactor: A Repository-Level Benchmark for Real-World LLM-Based Code Refactoringcited by 11
  10. 2024An Empirical Study on the Potential of LLMs in Automated Software Refactoringcited by 10
  11. 2025Refactoring Codebases through Library Designcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026"Refactoring Runaway": Understanding and Mitigating Tangled Refactorings in Coding Agents for Issue Resolution
  2. 2025MANTRA: Enhancing Automated Method-Level Refactoring with Contextual RAG and Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration
  3. 2025Agentic Refactoring: An Empirical Study of AI Coding Agents
  4. 2025RefAgent: A Multi-agent LLM-based Framework for Automatic Software Refactoring
  5. 2026RefactorAssist: Agentic Refinement for Reliable Code Refactoring
  6. 2026REFINE: A Multi-Agent LLM Approach for Evidence-Guided Code Refactoring
  7. 2026RefactorPlatform: An Open-Source Harness for Controlled Evaluation of Repository-Scale Refactoring Agents
  8. 2026To Run or Not to Run: Analyzing the Cost-Effectiveness of Code Execution in LLM-Based Program Repair