Source code
Official dataset source · Buse/54
Sample
Buse/54
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.856 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 84.8Δ 23.2 |
| Scalabrino | 0.819 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 63.6Δ 2.0 |
| Dorn | 0.823 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 88.9Δ 27.3 |
| Mi | 0.493 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 39.4Δ 22.2 |
| LLOC | 3 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 88.9Δ 27.3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 98.5Δ 36.9 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 96.0Δ 34.3 |
| BTTF | 0.554 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 60.6Δ 1.0 |
| Human | 3.6 | 1–5; original rating | 61.6 |
Views
Select the downloaded ZIP or its extracted folder. Files stay in your browser.
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 3.741 | −5.612 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 129.515 | −4.274 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 7 | +2.8 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 1.784 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.784) = 0.856.
| Score | 0.819 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 8 | +0.753 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 4 | −0.599 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 79.875 | +0.484 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.05 | +0.457 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 6.877 | −0.314 |
| Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names. | 79.75 | +0.287 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.538 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.538) = 0.823.
| Score | 0.493 |
|---|
| Score | 3 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, logical structure with a section header comment indicating required fields. Nesting is flat, and intent is unambiguous—each line adds a column to the result set. The code is concise, with one action per line, and the inline comment for 'not null' clarifies a non-obvious constraint. Reading flow is natural, grouping related columns together.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It has a clear logical structure with a section header marking required fields. Nesting is minimal and shallow. Each action is on its own line, maintaining one action per line. Intent is clear — adding required columns to a table. The use of `false` to indicate 'not null' is slightly ambiguous without context but is clarified by a comment. Reading flow is natural and easy to follow. The code is concise with no unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of empty comments before the header slightly detracts from perfection.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It uses a clear section comment to indicate required fields, and each line performs a single, distinct action with consistent method calls. The nesting is minimal, the intent is unambiguous, and the concise length avoids unnecessary verbosity. The inline comment further clarifies a specific constraint without disrupting flow.
Run 1
Code Structure: A logically grouped sequence of related column definitions. Nesting: No nesting, making the snippet easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Descriptive column names and the 'not null' comment clarify the definitions, although the meaning of 't' and the boolean argument depends on surrounding context. Code length: Concise, with slightly excessive decorative comment separators. Action granularity: Each line performs one column-addition action. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and a natural sequence make the code straightforward to follow.
Run 2
Code Structure: The three related column definitions are logically grouped under a clear section heading. Nesting: The snippet is flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Column names, SQL types, and the 'not null' comment make the purpose clear, although 't' and the boolean argument require some external context. Code length: The implementation is concise; the decorative comment separators add minor visual overhead. Action granularity: Each line performs exactly one column-addition action. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and sequential definitions make the code easy to scan.
Run 3
Code Structure: The required columns are logically grouped under a clear section comment. Nesting: The snippet is flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: addColumn calls, descriptive column names, and explicit SQL types make the purpose clear; the 'not null' comment explains the boolean argument, though t and false are not self-describing. Code length: Three concise statements perform the work, with slightly verbose decorative comments. Action granularity: Each line adds exactly one column. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and sequential declarations make the code easy to scan.