PofoliaShared via Pofolia

ACM Computing Surveys· 2026Q1

A Survey of Deep Learning Based Software Refactoring

Bridget Nyirongo, Yanjie Jiang, He Jiang, Hui Liu

Short summary

A survey categorizes deep learning-based software refactoring into five tasks, revealing research is concentrated on code smell detection (43.84%) and recommendation (32.88%), with implementation (12.33%) and mining (8.22%) emergent, and impact analysis under-explored (2.74%).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Deep learning-based software refactoring is categorized into five tasks: code smell detection, recommendation, implementation, mining, and impact analysis.
  • Research is heavily concentrated on code smell detection (43.84%) and refactoring recommendation (32.88%).
  • Refactoring implementation (12.33%) and mining (8.22%) are emergent research areas.
  • Refactoring impact analysis is significantly under-explored, comprising only 2.74% of the literature.
  • Critical gaps include a lack of quality assurance research for DL-based refactoring and minimal attention to class- and variable-level operations.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Refactoring is a critical activity in software engineering used to improve software quality and maintainability. Increasingly, deep learning (DL) techniques are being applied to software refactoring to overcome the limitations of traditional, manually designed heuristics. However, there is a lack of comprehensive surveys and structured taxonomies characterizing these deep learning-based approaches. To fill this gap, we present a survey that categorizes deep learning-based software refactoring into five core tasks: code smell detection, refactoring recommendation, refactoring implementation, refactoring mining, and refactoring impact analysis. Our analysis reveals an imbalance in research distribution. The field is concentrated on the early decision-making stages, with code smell detection ( \(43.84\% \) ) and refactoring recommendation ( \(32.88\% \) ) comprising more than three-quarters of the literature. Conversely, refactoring implementation ( \(12.33\% \) ) and mining ( \(8.22\% \) ) show emergent tracking, while refactoring impact analysis remains under-explored ( \(2.74\% \) ). Beyond this taxonomy, the survey highlights critical gaps, including a notable absence of research on quality assurance for DL-based refactoring and minimal attention given to class- and variable-level operations. Finally, we map out open challenges and future directions to guide researchers toward building more comprehensive, end-to-end automated refactoring pipelines.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. ACM Computing Surveys, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Information Systems

Information SystemsComputer Science