REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references
Identification and Optimization of Redundant Code Using Large Language Models
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper proposes using large language models to automatically detect and remove redundant code in AI projects, verifying each rewrite against the project's own test suite.
desk verdict A well-written doctoral research proposal with no experimental content; the honest limitations section names the real validity threat, so there is nothing to verify yet. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is the LLM-powered refactoring agent, which processes files one at a time, replaces them with LLM-suggested clean versions, and accepts or rejects each rewrite based on whether the project's test suite still passes. Supporting it are static quality metrics—lines of code, cyclomatic complexity, code churn, maintainability index, bug density—that quantify whether an optimization actually reduced complexity.
What would settle it
Collect a set of AI codebases that have both their original test suites and a separate, more exhaustive held-out suite. If the LLM agent's optimized code passes the original tests but fails the held-out suite on inputs the original tests did not cover, the central claim that passing tests proves preserved functionality fails.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that redundant code in AI system codebases has identifiable recurring patterns, and that large language models can reliably detect and remove such code at scale without changing program behavior. It stakes this on a proposed pipeline: feed entire source files to one of three LLMs, reintegrate the optimized file, run the project's tests, and keep only rewrites that pass. The paper also maintains that the reasons developers introduce redundancy—copy-paste effects, repetitive logic, overused conditionals, outdated practices—can be catalogued and validated with developers, and that these patterns plus quality metrics can drive an automated refactoring agent.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that an LLM rewrite that passes the project's existing test suite has preserved the original behavior; the paper concedes incomplete test coverage could mask regressions.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If LLMs can strip redundancy at scale, developers of AI systems would spend less time untangling duplicated logic and more time on features and bug fixes.
- The catalog of redundancy patterns and causes could guide coding standards and linters to prevent duplication at creation rather than cleaning it up later.
- The test-suite verification loop suggests an automated refactoring tool that is safest on projects with strong test coverage, since it relies on those tests to catch behavior changes.
- Quality metrics such as maintainability index and cyclomatic complexity could provide before-and-after evidence that redundancy removal measurably improves code quality.
- If the agent works, it would reduce technical debt in AI codebases, where large data-processing and computation-heavy code makes redundancy especially costly.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial inference: the author leaves implicit that file-level whole-file rewrites could be paired with static-analysis hints to flag candidate redundancies first, reducing LLM cost and improving precision; that combination is a natural extension but is not proposed in the paper.
- Editorial inference: the approach would likely generalize beyond AI projects to any Python or JavaScript codebase, since the redundancy patterns cited are language-level, but the paper deliberately limits its claims to open-source AI projects.
- Editorial inference: the pass-tests criterion is only as strong as the suite itself; on projects with sparse coverage, the agent could silently change behavior, a risk the paper acknowledges in its limitations section.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This manuscript, identified as a doctoral research proposal, aims to address the perceived lack of studies on redundant code in AI system codebases by proposing the use of large language models (LLMs) to automatically detect, optimize, and reason about redundant code. It defines four research questions covering the prevalence and impact of redundancy in AI projects, the recurring patterns and causes, developers' perspectives, and the effectiveness of LLMs. The planned contributions include a catalog of redundancy reasons, an LLM-powered tool for optimization, and an evaluation framework based on test suite passage, static metrics (LOC, cyclomatic complexity, code churn), developer interviews, and user studies. The paper explicitly states that the project is in its early stages and that the evaluation framework may be refined, and it concludes with a limitations section acknowledging issues such as limited generalizability, test coverage, and subjective validation.
Significance. If executed as planned, the proposed work could produce a useful empirical characterization of redundancy in AI codebases and a practical tool for automated refactoring. The manuscript is clearly structured and honest in stating its limitations, which is a strength. However, the paper currently contains no implemented tool, no experimental results, and no derivations. Its central claim that LLMs can optimize redundant code while preserving functionality is a plan rather than a demonstrated result. The proposed validation procedure, which equates passing existing test suites with behavior preservation, is explicitly conceded by the authors to be potentially inadequate, undermining the key success criterion. As a journal submission, the manuscript does not yet offer a complete, evaluable scientific contribution, though it could serve as a basis for a research proposal or vision paper.
major comments (4)
- [III/IV/V] The central claim of preserving original functionality is operationally defined in Sections III and IV as passing existing test cases, yet Section V explicitly states that 'incomplete test case coverage may fail to detect functionality issues in optimized code.' This makes the validation circular: the LLM output is considered successful if the tests pass, even when the tests may not exercise all behaviors. Since RQ4 and Expected Outcome 2 depend on this criterion, the proposal's success metric is self-admittedly unreliable. The authors should propose a stronger equivalence check, such as differential testing, property-based testing, or manual review of a representative sample, and report the coverage of the test suites used.
- [Section III] The plan to submit 'an entire file' to the LLM for optimization and then reintegrate the optimized file into the codebase is risky because a large rewrite can alter multiple code paths simultaneously, making it difficult to attribute any behavioral change to a specific optimization. The proposed tool later optimizes 'files one at a time,' but still processes whole files. The paper does not describe how individual changes will be isolated or validated. A stepwise, diff-based approach with verification at each transformation would be needed to support the claim of large-scale safe optimization.
- [Section III] The evaluation metrics listed (LOC, Cyclomatic Complexity, Code Churn) do not directly measure 'redundancy' as defined in the paper. These metrics capture size, structural complexity, and change volume, but they are not sufficient to detect duplicate logic, copy-paste code, or dead branches. Without an operational definition of redundancy and a corresponding measurement strategy, the stated outcomes in RQ1 and RQ2 are not refutable. The paper should specify how redundancy will be quantified and how the catalog of patterns will be empirically grounded.
- [Entire manuscript] The manuscript is a research proposal with no empirical results, no prototype, and no validation data. The abstract claims that 'this research addresses these gaps,' but the paper only describes a plan. For a journal publication in software engineering, the absence of any implemented system or evaluation means the central claims are unsupported. The authors could reposition this as a position paper, or better, complete and report a pilot study to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed approach.
minor comments (5)
- [Abstract and full text] The text contains numerous broken words and spaces, such as 'a nd', 'introdu cing', and 're dundant', likely resulting from PDF extraction. The authors should ensure that the final manuscript is free of such artifacts.
- [Section I] The sentence 'dead code refers to programming that is never executed' uses 'programming' where 'program code' or 'source code' would be more precise.
- [Section III] The phrase 'Cyclomatic Complexity (logical complexity)' is imprecise; cyclomatic complexity specifically measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's control flow, not general logical complexity.
- [Section III] The citation to Li et al. [17] for selecting open-source projects does not describe the methodology. Briefly summarizing what that methodology is would help the reader assess the validity of the project selection.
- [Section V] There is a typographical issue with the phrase 'e.g., Code Maintainability Index and Cyclomatic Complexity may not fully capture' - the comma after 'e.g.' is missing, and the sentence could be split for readability.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the paper is a research proposal with no derived predictions or fitted parameters.
full rationale
This manuscript is a doctoral research proposal that plans to use LLMs to detect and optimize redundant code in AI projects. It contains no derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no equation that reduces an output to an input by construction. The proposed evaluation relies on external evidence: running existing test suites, static-analysis metrics (LOC, cyclomatic complexity, code churn), developer interviews, surveys, and user studies. The strongest assumption, that passing the existing test suite indicates preserved functionality, is explicitly flagged by the authors as a limitation: 'Incomplete test case coverage may fail to detect functionality issues in optimized code' (Section V). That limitation concerns validity of the planned validation, not circularity. The paper does not invoke any self-citation as load-bearing evidence, nor does it rename a known result as a new derivation. Therefore no circular step is identifiable, and the circularity score is 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption LLMs can reliably identify redundant code and generate functionally equivalent optimizations.
- domain assumption Passing test suites is a sufficient proxy for preserving functionality after optimization.
- domain assumption Open-source AI projects are representative of AI systems' codebases for redundancy analysis.
- domain assumption Metrics such as LOC, Cyclomatic Complexity, Code Churn, Maintainability Index, and Bug Density capture the impact of redundant code on code quality.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Identification and Optimization of Redundant Code Using Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSW5CSQH
@misc{pith2026250504040,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Identification and Optimization of Redundant Code Using Large Language Models},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSW5CSQH}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04040}
}
read the original abstract
Redundant code is a persistent challenge in software development that makes systems harder to maintain, scale, and update. It adds unnecessary complexity, hinders bug fixes, and increases technical debt. Despite their impact, removing redundant code manually is risky and error-prone, often introducing new bugs or missing dependencies. While studies highlight the prevalence and negative impact of redundant code, little focus has been given to Artificial Intelligence (AI) system codebases and the common patterns that cause redundancy. Additionally, the reasons behind developers unintentionally introducing redundant code remain largely unexplored. This research addresses these gaps by leveraging large language models (LLMs) to automatically detect and optimize redundant code in AI projects. Our research aims to identify recurring patterns of redundancy and analyze their underlying causes, such as outdated practices or insufficient awareness of best coding principles. Additionally, we plan to propose an LLM agent that will facilitate the detection and refactoring of redundancies on a large scale while preserving original functionality. This work advances the application of AI in identifying and optimizing redundant code, ultimately helping developers maintain cleaner, more readable, and scalable codebases.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Java quality assurance by det ecting code smells,
E. V an Emden and L. Moonen, “Java quality assurance by det ecting code smells,” in Ninth W orking Conference on Reverse Engineering,
-
[2]
Structural quality me trics as indicators of the long method bad smell: An empirical study,
S. Charalampidou, E.-M. Arvanitou, A. Ampatzoglou, P . A vgeriou, A. Chatzigeorgiou, and I. Stamelos, “Structural quality me trics as indicators of the long method bad smell: An empirical study, ” in 2018 44th Euromicro Conference on software engineering and adva nced applications (SEAA) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 234–238
work page 2018
-
[3]
An optimization method of javascript redundant code elimination based on hybrid analysis technique,
G. Qiong and W. Li, “An optimization method of javascript redundant code elimination based on hybrid analysis technique,” in 2020 17th International Computer Conference on W avelet Active MediaTechnology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 300–305
work page 2020
-
[4]
A. Sundelin, J. Gonzalez-Huerta, and K. Wnuk, “The hidde n cost of backward compatibility: when deprecation turns into techn ical debt-an experience report,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technical Debt , 2020, pp. 67–76
work page 2020
-
[5]
Towards a mapping of software technical debt onto testware,
E. Al´ egroth and J. Gonzalez-Huerta, “Towards a mapping of software technical debt onto testware,” in 2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 404–411
work page 2017
-
[6]
W. Shackleton, K. Cohn-Gordon, P . C. Rigby, R. Abreu, J. G ill, N. Nagappan, K. Nakad, I. Papagiannis, L. Petre, G. Megreli et al. , “Dead code removal at meta: Automatically deleting million s of lines of code and petabytes of deprecated data,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Sym posium on the F oundatio...
work page 2023
-
[7]
A multi- study investigation into dead code,
S. Romano, C. V endome, G. Scanniello, and D. Poshyvanyk, “A multi- study investigation into dead code,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 71–99, 2018
work page 2018
-
[8]
Javascript dead code identifica tion, elim- ination, and empirical assessment,
I. Malavolta, K. Nirghin, G. L. Scoccia, S. Romano, S. Lom bardi, G. Scanniello, and P . Lago, “Javascript dead code identifica tion, elim- ination, and empirical assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 3692–3714, 2023
work page 2023
Show all 27 references
-
[9]
Rc-fi nder: Redundancy detection for large scale source code,
G. Dandan, W. Tiantian, S. Xiaohong, and M. Peijun, “Rc-fi nder: Redundancy detection for large scale source code,” in 2012 Second International Conference on Instrumentation, Measuremen t, Computer , Communication and Control . IEEE, 2012, pp. 243–248
2012
-
[10]
An exploratory study of functional redundancy in code repo sitories,
M. Suzuki, A. C. de Paula, E. Guerra, C. V . Lopes, and O. A. L. Lemos, “An exploratory study of functional redundancy in code repo sitories,” in 2017 IEEE 17th International W orking Conference on Source C ode Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 31–40
2017
-
[11]
Inve stigating student reasoning in method-level code refactoring: A think-aloud study,
E. Carneiro Oliveira, H. Keuning, and J. Jeuring, “Inve stigating student reasoning in method-level code refactoring: A think-aloud study,” in Proceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Confere nce on Computing Education Research , 2024, pp. 1–11
2024
-
[12]
Dead code,
S. Romano, “Dead code,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 737– 742
2018
-
[13]
Cost-effective, energy-efficient, and scalable storage computing for large-scale ai applications,
J. Do, V . C. Ferreira, H. Bobarshad, M. Torabzadehkashi , S. Rezaei, A. Heydarigorji, D. Souza, B. F. Goldstein, L. Santiago, M. S . Kim et al. , “Cost-effective, energy-efficient, and scalable storage computing for large-scale ai applications,” ACM Transactions on Storage (TO...
2020
-
[14]
Attacks and defenses for large language mode ls on coding tasks,
C. Zhang, Z. Wang, R. Zhao, R. Mangal, M. Fredrikson, L. J ia, and C. Pasareanu, “Attacks and defenses for large language mode ls on coding tasks,” in Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering , 2024, pp. 2268–2272
2024
-
[15]
Deepcode ai fix: Fixing security vulnerabilitie s with large language models,
B. Berabi, A. Gronskiy, V . Raychev, G. Sivanrupan, V . Ch ibotaru, and M. V echev, “Deepcode ai fix: Fixing security vulnerabilitie s with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13291 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[16]
Llm-based control code ge neration using image recognition,
H. Koziolek and A. Koziolek, “Llm-based control code ge neration using image recognition,” in Proceedings of the 1st International W orkshop on Large Language Models for Code , 2024, pp. 38–45
2024
-
[17]
Exploring factors and metrics to select open source software components for integ ration: An empirical study,
X. Li, S. Moreschini, Z. Zhang, and D. Taibi, “Exploring factors and metrics to select open source software components for integ ration: An empirical study,” Journal of Systems and Software , vol. 188, p. 111255, 2022
2022
-
[18]
Gpt-4 technical report,
J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L . Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[19]
Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,
G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Y u, R. So ricut, J. Schalkwyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, K. Millican et al., “Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[20]
Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,
H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. La chaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi` ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al. , “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[21]
Using a line of code metric to understand s oftware rework,
E. Morozoff, “Using a line of code metric to understand s oftware rework,” IEEE software , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 72–77, 2009
2009
-
[22]
Cyclomatic complexity,
C. Ebert, J. Cain, G. Antoniol, S. Counsell, and P . Lapla nte, “Cyclomatic complexity,” IEEE software, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 27–29, 2016
2016
-
[23]
Eva luating complexity, code churn, and developer activity metrics as i ndicators of software vulnerabilities,
Y . Shin, A. Meneely, L. Williams, and J. A. Osborne, “Eva luating complexity, code churn, and developer activity metrics as i ndicators of software vulnerabilities,” IEEE transactions on software engineering , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 772–787, 2010
2010
-
[24]
Developmen t and application of an automated source code maintainability in dex,
K. D. Welker, P . W. Oman, and G. G. Atkinson, “Developmen t and application of an automated source code maintainability in dex,” Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 127– 159, 1997
1997
-
[25]
The impa ct of coverage on bug density in a large industrial software proje ct,
T. Bach, A. Andrzejak, R. Pannemans, and D. Lo, “The impa ct of coverage on bug density in a large industrial software proje ct,” in 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software En gineering and Measurement (ESEM) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 307–313
2017
-
[26]
Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years l ater,
S. G. Hart, “Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years l ater,” in Pro- ceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 50, no. 9. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 20 06, pp. 904–908
-
[2002]
IEEE, 2002, pp
Proceedings. IEEE, 2002, pp. 97–106
2002
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.