Sample
int-27aeefed229b-I07
Insert deterministic runtime-dead branches into callable bodies
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.884 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.967 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.849 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.77 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 3 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 19.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.691 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
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. | 4.704 | −7.055 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 16 | +6.4 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 187.296 | −6.181 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 2.034 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(2.034) = 0.884.
| Score | 0.967 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 65.941 | +0.872 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 17 | +0.434 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 12 | −0.322 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 66 | +0.26 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.076 | +0.203 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 15.806 | −0.189 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.727 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.727) = 0.849.
| Score | 0.77 |
|---|
| Score | 3 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is exceptionally readable. It is a small, highly focused interface with a clear purpose: defining operations for concurrent long addition. The package and import are minimal and correct, and the Javadoc succinctly explains the abstraction. The methods are named using standard conventions (`increment`, `add`, `sum`) and have unambiguous signatures. No nesting exists, and action granularity is ideal—one declaration per line. The structure follows standard Java interface organization, and the reading flow is natural: documentation, then method declarations in a logical order. Concise without being terse.
Run 2
The code is exceptionally readable. It is a small, focused interface with a clear purpose, documented concisely. There is no nesting or logical complexity; each method declaration is on its own line with self-explanatory names. The package and import statements follow standard conventions. The Javadoc and author annotation provide context without being verbose. Overall, the structure is flat, intent is unambiguous, and the reading flow is natural.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. Structure is clear: package, import, class-level Javadoc, annotation, and interface declaration follow a logical order. Nesting is nonexistent since this is a flat interface. Intent is explicit through descriptive method names (`increment`, `add`, `sum`) and concise documentation stating the purpose. Code length is minimal, with no unnecessary elements. Action granularity is appropriate—each method signature occupies its own line. Reading flow is natural from top to bottom. Minor deduction only because the Javadoc could be slightly more specific about thread-safety semantics, but overall clarity is excellent.
Run 1
Code Structure: A logically organized interface with a package declaration, import, documentation, annotation, and method declarations. Nesting: No unnecessary nesting; all methods are directly within the interface. Clarity of intent: The documentation and method names clearly communicate a concurrent long accumulator, although the parameter name 'x' is generic and concurrency semantics are not detailed. Code length: Minimal and appropriate for a three-method interface. Action granularity: Each method declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: Conventional ordering and blank lines between methods make scanning easy; a blank line between the package declaration and import would slightly improve formatting.
Run 2
Code Structure: A logically organized interface containing three related operations. Nesting: No nested control flow or unnecessary structural depth. Clarity of intent: Documentation and method names clearly communicate concurrent accumulation, though the parameter name 'x' is generic and sum() does not document its concurrency semantics. Code length: Minimal and appropriate for the interface. Action granularity: Each method declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: Package, import, documentation, annotation, and interface appear in a natural order, with blank lines separating methods; a blank line after the package declaration would slightly improve formatting.
Run 3
Code Structure: A minimal interface cleanly groups three related operations. Nesting: No nested control flow or unnecessary structural complexity. Clarity of intent: The documentation and method names clearly communicate a concurrent long accumulator, though the parameter name 'x' is generic and concurrency guarantees are not detailed. Code length: Concise, with no redundant implementation or declarations. Action granularity: Each method declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: Package, import, documentation, annotation, and interface appear in a natural order, with blank lines separating methods. A blank line between the package and import would slightly improve formatting.