Copilot Refinement: Addressing Code Smells in Copilot-Generated Python Code

As one of the most popular dynamic languages, Python experiences a decrease in readability and maintainability when code smells are present. Recent advancements in Large Language Models have sparked growing interest in AI-enabled tools for both code generation and refactoring. GitHub Copilot is one such tool that has gained widespread usage. Copilot Chat, released on September 2023, functions as an interactive tool aims at facilitating natural language-powered coding. However, limited attention has been given to understanding code smells in Copilot-generated Python code and Copilot's ability to fix the code smells it generates. To this end, we built a dataset comprising 102 code smells in Copilot-generated Python code. Our aim is to first explore the occurrence of code smells in Copilot-generated Python code and then evaluate the effectiveness of Copilot in fixing these code smells employing different prompts. The results show that 8 out of 10 types of Python smells can be detected in Copilot-generated Python code, among which Multiply-Nested Container is the most common one. For these code smells, Copilot Chat achieves a highest fixing rate of 87.1%, showing promise in fixing Python code smells generated by Copilot itself. Besides, the effectiveness of Copilot Chat in fixing these smells can be improved with the provision of more detailed prompts. However, using Copilot Chat to fix these smells might introduce new code smells.

Understanding Bugs in Multi-Language Deep Learning Frameworks

Deep learning frameworks (DLFs) have been playing an increasingly important role in this intelligence age since they act as a basic infrastructure for an increasingly wide range of AIbased applications. Meanwhile, as multi-programming-language (MPL) software systems, DLFs are inevitably suffering from bugs caused by the use of multiple programming languages (PLs). Hence, it is of paramount significance to understand the bugs (especially the bugs involving multiple PLs, i.e., MPL bugs) of DLFs, which can provide a foundation for preventing, detecting, and resolving bugs in the development of DLFs. To this end, we manually analyzed 1497 bugs in three MPL DLFs, namely MXNet, PyTorch, and TensorFlow. First, we classified bugs in these DLFs into 12 types (e.g., algorithm design bugs and memory bugs) according to their bug labels and characteristics. Second, we further explored the impacts of different bug types on the development of DLFs, and found that deployment bugs and memory bugs negatively impact the development of DLFs in different aspects the most. Third, we found that 28.6%, 31.4%, and 16.0% of bugs in MXNet, PyTorch, and TensorFlow are MPL bugs, respectively; the PL combination of Python and C/C++ is most used in fixing more than 92% MPL bugs in all DLFs. Finally, the code change complexity of MPL bug fixes is significantly greater than that of single-programming-language (SPL) bug fixes in all the three DLFs, while in PyTorch MPL bug fixes have longer open time and greater communication complexity than SPL bug fixes. These results provide insights for bug management in DLFs.