Sample

Buse/8

Human rating uses the original dataset scale.

DatasetBuse
Human2.86
Lines4

Scores

MethodScoreScaleDataset rank
(0–100)
Posnett0.0460–1; higher is more readable
31.3Δ 3.5
Scalabrino0.5250–1; higher is more readable
18.2Δ 9.6
Dorn0.220–1; higher is more readable
12.1Δ 15.7
Mi0.2120–1; higher is more readable
10.1Δ 17.7
LLOC4Logical lines; fewer is more readable
59.6Δ 31.8
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.330–20; mean of three runs
50.5Δ 22.7
GPT-6.1 Sol15.330–20; mean of three runs
39.9Δ 12.1
BTTF0.4290–1; higher is more readable
30.3Δ 2.5
Human2.861–5; original rating
27.8

Views

Download official ZIP ↗

Select the downloaded ZIP or its extracted folder. Files stay in your browser.

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

Feature contributions

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(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.4.668−7.002
Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones.197.153−6.506
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.4+1.6

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -3.038 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-3.038) = 0.046.

Score0.525

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.5+0.859
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.0−0.804
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.1−0.703
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.100.8−0.604
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.3.882−0.356
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.11−0.126

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.266 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.266) = 0.22.

Score0.212
Score4
Run 1

The code is a constructor that calls super with clear arguments and assigns two fields. Structure is logical and nesting is flat. However, the intent of the parameters and field names (fTest, fMethod) is somewhat unclear without additional context; they appear to use a Hungarian-like notation that may be ambiguous. Code length is concise and action granularity is one action per line. Reading flow is natural but the method signature is long and could benefit from line breaks for readability.

Run 2

The code snippet is a constructor that is relatively clear and concise. It shows a logical structure: calling the superclass constructor and then assigning two fields. Nesting is flat, with no conditional or loop structures. The intent is fairly clear—initializing a test runner with a test instance, a method, a notifier, and a description. However, the field names fTest and fMethod are slightly ambiguous due to the prefix 'f', and the absence of visibility modifiers (private/protected) may reduce readability. The action granularity is good, with one assignment per line. The reading flow is natural, but the incomplete snippet limits full assessment.

Run 3

The code snippet shows a constructor with a super call and two field assignments. The structure is logical, but the use of Hungarian notation (fTest, fMethod) slightly reduces readability. The nesting is flat and the intent is fairly clear, though the 'f' prefix is unnecessary modern Java. The code is concise, actions are separated appropriately, and the reading flow is natural. Main deductions come from naming style and missing closing brace in the snippet, which may indicate incomplete formatting.

Run 1

Code Structure: The constructor is logically organized, beginning with superclass initialization followed by field assignments, though the snippet is incomplete. Nesting: No nested control flow, making it easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Constructor and parameter names convey test-runner initialization, but notifier and description are unused in the visible portion, and the superclass arguments require context. Code length: Concise, with no obvious unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each initialization occupies its own line. Reading flow: The sequence is natural, although inconsistent spacing around assignment operators and the missing closing brace reduce polish and completeness.

Run 2

Code Structure: The constructor is logically organized, calling the superclass before assigning fields, but the snippet lacks a closing brace. Nesting: It is flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The constructor and assignments are straightforward, though the f-prefixed field names are less descriptive and notifier and description are unused in the shown code. Code length: The snippet is concise without unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each statement occupies its own line. Reading flow: Execution reads naturally from initialization to assignments, although inconsistent spacing around assignment operators and the incomplete constructor slightly reduce readability.

Run 3

Code Structure: The constructor is logically organized, with superclass initialization followed by field assignments, but the snippet lacks a closing brace. Nesting: Flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Constructor and parameter names convey test-runner initialization, although notifier and description are unused in the shown code. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each initialization occupies its own line. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression, slightly weakened by inconsistent assignment spacing and the incomplete snippet.