REVIEW 1 cited by
Evaluating Large Language Models in Detecting Test Smells
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
Evaluating Large Language Models in Detecting Test Smells
read the original abstract
Test smells are coding issues that typically arise from inadequate practices, a lack of knowledge about effective testing, or deadline pressures to complete projects. The presence of test smells can negatively impact the maintainability and reliability of software. While there are tools that use advanced static analysis or machine learning techniques to detect test smells, these tools often require effort to be used. This study aims to evaluate the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automatically detecting test smells. We evaluated ChatGPT-4, Mistral Large, and Gemini Advanced using 30 types of test smells across codebases in seven different programming languages collected from the literature. ChatGPT-4 identified 21 types of test smells. Gemini Advanced identified 17 types, while Mistral Large detected 15 types of test smells. Conclusion: The LLMs demonstrated potential as a valuable tool in identifying test smells.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptions
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.