BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Danny Dig

Danny Dig contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Multi-Agent Coordinated Rename Refactoring

The primary value of AI agents in software development lies in their ability to extend the developer's capacity for reasoning and action, not to supplant human involvement. To showcase how to use agents working in tandem with developers, we designed a novel approach for carrying out coordinated renaming. Coordinated renaming, where a single rename refactoring triggers refactorings in multiple, related identifiers, is a frequent yet challenging task. Developers must manually propagate these rename refactorings across numerous files and contexts, a process that is both tedious and highly error-prone. State-of-the-art heuristic-based approaches produce an overwhelming number of false positives, while vanilla Large Language Models (LLMs) provide incomplete suggestions due to their limited context and inability to interact with refactoring tools. This leaves developers with incomplete refactorings or burdens them with filtering too many false positives. Coordinated renaming is exactly the kind of repetitive task that agents can significantly reduce the developers' burden while keeping them in the driver's seat. We designed, implemented, and evaluated the first multi-agent framework that automates coordinated renaming. It operates on a key insight: a developer's initial refactoring is a clue to infer the scope of related refactorings. Our Scope Inference Agent first transforms this clue into an explicit, natural-language Declared Scope. The Planned Execution Agent then uses this as a strict plan to identify program elements that should undergo refactoring and safely executes the changes by invoking the IDE's own trusted refactoring APIs. Finally, the Replication Agent uses it to guide the project-wide search. We first conducted a formative study on the practice of coordinated renaming in 609K commits in 100 open-source projects and surveyed 205 developers ...

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

IntelliTC: Automating Type Changes in IntelliJ IDEA

Developers often change types of program elements. Such refactoring often involves updating not only the type of the element itself, but also the API of all type-dependent references in the code, thus it is tedious and time-consuming. Despite type changes being more frequent than renamings, just a few current IDE tools provide partially-automated support only for a small set of hard-coded types. Researchers have recently proposed a data-driven approach to inferring API rewrite rules for type change patterns in Java using code commits history. In this paper, we build upon these recent advances and introduce IntelliTC - a tool to perform Java type change refactoring. We implemented it as a plugin for IntelliJ IDEA, a popular Java IDE developed by JetBrains. We present 3 different ways of providing support for such a refactoring from the standpoint of the user experience: Classic mode, Suggested Refactoring, and Inspection mode. To evaluate these modalities of using IntelliTC, we surveyed 22 experienced software developers. They positively rated the usefulness of the tool. The source code and distribution of the plugin are available on GitHub: https://github.com/JetBrains-Research/data-driven-type-migration. A demonstration video is on YouTube: https://youtu.be/pdcfvADA1PY.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Operation-based Refactoring-aware Merging: An Empirical Evaluation

Dealing with merge conflicts in version control systems is a challenging task for software developers. Resolving merge conflicts is a time-consuming and error-prone process, which distracts developers from important tasks. Recent work shows that refactorings are often involved in merge conflicts and that refactoring-related conflicts tend to be larger, making them harder to resolve. In the literature, there are two refactoring-aware merging techniques that claim to automatically resolve refactoring-related conflicts; however, these two techniques have never been empirically compared. In this paper, we present RefMerge, a rejuvenated Java-based design and implementation of the first technique, which is an operation-based refactoring-aware merging algorithm. We compare RefMerge to Git and the state-of-the-art graph-based refactoring-aware merging tool, IntelliMerge, on 2,001 merge scenarios with refactoring-related conflicts from 20 open-source projects. We find that RefMerge resolves or reduces conflicts in 497 (25%) merge scenarios while increasing conflicting LOC in only 214 (11%) scenarios. On the other hand, we find that IntelliMerge resolves or reduces conflicts in 478 (24%) merge scenarios but increases conflicting LOC in 597 (30%) merge scenarios. We additionally conduct a qualitative analysis of the differences between the three merging algorithms and provide insights of the strengths and weaknesses of each tool. We find that while IntelliMerge does well with ordering and formatting conflicts, it struggles with class-level refactorings and scenarios with several refactorings. On the other hand, RefMerge is resilient to the number of refactorings in a merge scenario, but we find that RefMerge introduces conflicts when inverting move-related refactorings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

30 Years of Software Refactoring Research:A Systematic Literature Review

Due to the growing complexity of software systems, there has been a dramatic increase and industry demand for tools and techniques on software refactoring in the last ten years, defined traditionally as a set of program transformations intended to improve the system design while preserving the behavior. Refactoring studies are expanded beyond code-level restructuring to be applied at different levels (architecture, model, requirements, etc.), adopted in many domains beyond the object-oriented paradigm (cloud computing, mobile, web, etc.), used in industrial settings and considered objectives beyond improving the design to include other non-functional requirements (e.g., improve performance, security, etc.). Thus, challenges to be addressed by refactoring work are, nowadays, beyond code transformation to include, but not limited to, scheduling the opportune time to carry refactoring, recommendations of specific refactoring activities, detection of refactoring opportunities, and testing the correctness of applied refactorings. Therefore, the refactoring research efforts are fragmented over several research communities, various domains, and objectives. To structure the field and existing research results, this paper provides a systematic literature review and analyzes the results of 3183 research papers on refactoring covering the last three decades to offer the most scalable and comprehensive literature review of existing refactoring research studies. Based on this survey, we created a taxonomy to classify the existing research, identified research trends, and highlighted gaps in the literature and avenues for further research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access