FasterPy: An LLM-based Code Execution Efficiency Optimization Framework

Code often suffers from performance bugs. These bugs necessitate the research and practice of code optimization. Traditional rule-based methods rely on manually designing and maintaining rules for specific performance bugs (e.g., redundant loops, repeated computations), making them labor-intensive and limited in applicability. In recent years, machine learning and deep learning-based methods have emerged as promising alternatives by learning optimization heuristics from annotated code corpora and performance measurements. However, these approaches usually depend on specific program representations and meticulously crafted training datasets, making them costly to develop and difficult to scale. With the booming of Large Language Models (LLMs), their remarkable capabilities in code generation have opened new avenues for automated code optimization. In this work, we proposed FasterPy, a low-cost and efficient framework that adapts LLMs to optimize the execution efficiency of Python code. FasterPy combines Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), supported by a knowledge base constructed from existing performance-improving code pairs and corresponding performance measurements, with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) to enhance code optimization performance. Our experimental results on the Performance Improving Code Edits (PIE) benchmark demonstrate that our method outperforms existing models on multiple metrics. The FasterPy tool and the experimental results are available at https://github.com/WuYue22/fasterpy.

Designing LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering Tasks: Quality Attributes, Design Patterns and Rationale

As the complexity of Software Engineering (SE) tasks continues to escalate, Multi-Agent Systems (MASs) have emerged as a focal point of research and practice due to their autonomy and scalability. Furthermore, through leveraging the reasoning and planning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), the application of LLM-based MASs in the field of SE is garnering increasing attention. However, there is no dedicated study that systematically explores the design of LLM-based MASs, including the Quality Attributes (QAs) on which the designers mainly focus, the design patterns used by the designers, and the rationale guiding the design of LLM-based MASs for SE tasks. To this end, we conducted a study to identify the QAs that LLM-based MASs for SE tasks focus on, the design patterns used in the MASs, and the design rationale for the MASs. We collected 94 papers on LLM-based MASs for SE tasks as the source. Our study shows that: (1) Code Generation is the most common SE task solved by LLM-based MASs among ten identified SE tasks, (2) Functional Suitability is the QA on which designers of LLM-based MASs pay the most attention, (3) Role-Based Cooperation is the design pattern most frequently employed among 16 patterns used to construct LLM-based MASs, and (4) Improving the Quality of Generated Code is the most common rationale behind the design of LLM-based MASs. Based on the study results, we presented the implications for the design of LLM-based MASs to support SE tasks.

Using LLMs in Generating Design Rationale for Software Architecture Decisions

Design Rationale (DR) for software architecture decisions refers to the reasoning underlying architectural choices, which provides valuable insights into the different phases of the architecting process throughout software development. However, in practice, DR is often inadequately documented due to a lack of motivation and effort from developers. With the recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their capabilities in text comprehension, reasoning, and generation may enable the generation and recovery of DR for architecture decisions. In this study, we evaluated the performance of LLMs in generating DR for architecture decisions. First, we collected 50 Stack Overflow (SO) posts, 25 GitHub issues, and 25 GitHub discussions related to architecture decisions to construct a dataset of 100 architecture-related problems. Then, we selected five LLMs to generate DR for the architecture decisions with three prompting strategies, including zero-shot, chain of thought (CoT), and LLM-based agents. With the DR provided by human experts as ground truth, the Precision of LLM-generated DR with the three prompting strategies ranges from 0.267 to 0.278, Recall from 0.627 to 0.715, and F1-score from 0.351 to 0.389. Additionally, 64.45% to 69.42% of the arguments of DR not mentioned by human experts are also helpful, 4.12% to 4.87% of the arguments have uncertain correctness, and 1.59% to 3.24% of the arguments are potentially misleading. Based on the results, we further discussed the pros and cons of the three prompting strategies and the strengths and limitations of the DR generated by LLMs.