Sample
Scalabrio194
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 45.7Δ 24.4 |
| Scalabrino | 0.047 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 3.5Δ 17.8 |
| Dorn | 0.098 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 16.1Δ 5.3 |
| Mi | 0.101 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 35.7Δ 14.3 |
| LLOC | 10 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 68.6Δ 47.2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 16.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 85.7Δ 64.3 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 83.7Δ 62.3 |
| BTTF | 0.35 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 6.5Δ 14.8 |
| Human | 3.11 | 1–5; original rating | 21.4 |
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) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 709.29 | −23.407 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.642 | −6.963 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 12 | +4.8 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -16.699 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-16.699) = 0.
| Score | 0.047 |
|---|
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. | 133.917 | −2.007 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 1 | +1.001 |
| 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 |
| 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. | 10.726 | −0.26 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.088 | +0.089 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -2.216 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.216) = 0.098.
| Score | 0.101 |
|---|
| Score | 10 |
|---|
Run 1
The method is well-structured and follows a clear, linear flow: schema creation, resource loading, JAXB context setup, unmarshalling, and result construction. Each line performs a single logical action, enhancing readability. Nesting is minimal to nonexistent. Intent is evident from method and variable names, though 'schemaName' and 'fileName' could be slightly more descriptive. The method is concise without sacrificing clarity. Potential improvements include using try-with-resources for the InputStream and extracting the unmarshalling logic into a helper method to further reduce coupling, but overall readability is high.
Run 2
The code is well-structured with a clear linear flow. It uses a descriptive method name, typed parameters, and logical variable names. Each line performs a single action, and there is no nesting. The method is concise and easy to follow. Minor deductions: line 1 is long due to multiple parameters, and there is no null or error-handling for missing resources, which could affect clarity in fail cases. Overall, it is highly readable.
Run 3
The code is highly readable due to its linear, logical structure and clear intent. Each step of the unmarshalling process—schema loading, resource location, context creation, unmarshaller configuration, and result construction—is presented as a separate, well-named action. Nesting is flat, with no conditional or loop complexity. Variable names are descriptive, and the method signature clearly communicates its inputs and outputs. The only minor deduction is for the slightly redundant 'Origin' construction and the potential need for stream/resource cleanup, which isn't shown, but the core logic remains concise and easy to follow.
Run 1
Code Structure: A logically organized method with a clear sequence of resource loading, JAXB setup, unmarshalling, and result construction. Nesting: Completely flat, making it easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The method name, parameter types, and JAXB operations communicate its purpose clearly, although abbreviations such as 'jc' and 'elem' and the null Origin argument are less descriptive. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single focused operation. Reading flow: Steps follow a natural dependency order from setup to return. The long method signature and a few vague local names slightly reduce readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organizes schema loading, resource access, JAXB setup, unmarshalling, and result construction. Nesting: Entirely flat, with no branches or loops. Clarity of intent: The method name and typed parameters clearly convey its purpose, though abbreviated variables such as jc and elem and the null Origin argument are less descriptive. Code length: Concise, with each statement contributing directly to the task. Action granularity: Generally one operation per line; the return statement combines value extraction and wrapper construction without becoming difficult to read. Reading flow: Follows a natural setup-to-processing-to-return sequence. The long method signature slightly reduces scanability.
Run 3
Code Structure: Logically organized as a straightforward sequence of schema loading, resource lookup, JAXB setup, unmarshalling, and result wrapping. Nesting: No nested control flow, making the method easy to scan. Clarity of intent: The method name, typed parameters, and JAXB operations clearly communicate its purpose, though abbreviated variables such as 'jc' and 'elem' and the null Origin argument provide less context. Code length: Concise, with little unnecessary code. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear operation. Reading flow: Dependencies are introduced before use, and execution proceeds naturally toward the return value. The long method signature and inconsistent spacing slightly reduce polish.