Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Benchmarking LLM for Code Smells Detection: OpenAI GPT-4.0 vs DeepSeek-V3

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.16027 v1 pith:CEX5PKFG submitted 2025-04-22 cs.SE cs.AIcs.LGcs.PL

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.LGcs.PL
keywords codedetectionanalysiscostperformancesmelldatasetdeepseek-v3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mitigating LLM Sycophancy in Code Smell Detection Using Evidence-Guided Reasoning Prompts

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sycophancy bias makes LLM code-smell detectors highly prompt-sensitive (DFR up to 72%, FAR >90%); evidence-first EGDP prompting reduces flips to ~12–26% and restores F1.

  2. DynamicsLLM: a Dynamic Analysis-based Tool for Generating Intelligent Execution Traces Using LLMs to Detect Android Behavioural Code Smells

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    DynamicsLLM uses LLMs to generate execution traces that cover three times more code smell-related events than the prior Dynamics tool on 333 F-Droid Android apps, with a hybrid method adding 25.9% coverage for low-act...

  3. Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptions

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most MCP tool descriptions (97.1%) contain quality smells, and augmenting them improves agent success by a median of 5.85 percentage points at a 67.46% increase in execution steps.

  4. Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization trains LLMs on generalizable reasoning by defining episodic rewards for counterfactual robustness and transferability then optimizing the policy with token-level advantages.

  5. Are We SOLID Yet? An Empirical Study on Prompting LLMs to Detect Design Principle Violations

    cs.SE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs vary sharply in detecting SOLID violations, GPT-4o Mini leads, and no single prompt strategy wins, with accuracy falling as code complexity rises.

Pith tools