Relative Code Comprehensibility Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03474v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 19:51:43 GMT
• Title: Relative Code Comprehensibility Prediction
• Abstract summary: We conduct a study to assess and compare the effectiveness of absolute and relative code comprehensibility prediction via machine learning.<n>Our findings indicate that absolute comprehensibility models improve over the baselines by at most 33.4% and frequently underperform.<n>Relative comprehensibility models are substantially better, with average improvements of 137.8% and 74.7% for snippet-wise prediction.
• Score: 5.123298347655088
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatically predicting how difficult it is for humans to understand a code snippet can assist developers in tasks like deciding when and where to refactor. Despite many proposed code comprehensibility metrics, studies have shown they often correlate poorly with actual measurements of human comprehensibility. This has motivated the use of machine learning models to predict human comprehensibility directly from code, but these models have also shown limited accuracy. We argue that model inaccuracy stems from inherent noise in human comprehensibility data, which confuses models trained to predict it directly. To address this, we propose training models to predict the relative comprehensibility of two code snippets - that is, predicting which snippet a human would find easier to understand without predicting each snippet's comprehensibility in isolation. This mitigates noise in predicting 'absolute' comprehensibility measurements, but is still useful for downstream software-engineering tasks like assessing whether refactoring improves or hinders comprehensibility. We conducted a study to assess and compare the effectiveness of absolute and relative code comprehensibility prediction via machine learning. We used a dataset of 150 Java code snippets and 12.5k human comprehensibility measurements from prior user studies, comparing the models' performance with naive baselines (eg 'always predict the majority class'). Our findings indicate that absolute comprehensibility models improve over the baselines by at most 33.4% and frequently underperform. In contrast, relative comprehensibility models are substantially better, with average improvements of 137.8% and 74.7% for snippet-wise and developer-wise prediction, respectively. These results suggest that relative comprehensibility models learn more effectively from the data, supporting their practical applicability for downstream SE tasks.

Related papers

• A Code Comprehension Benchmark for Large Language Models for Code [20.007789979629784]
  We propose fine-tuning large language models for code comprehension tasks using large-scale datasets.<n>We evaluate three code models of varying sizes on a suite of code comprehension tasks.<n>The most significant improvement is seen in the QWQ-32B model, where accuracy increases from 70% to 83.47%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T16:19:49Z)
• What Do Learning Dynamics Reveal About Generalization in LLM Reasoning? [83.83230167222852]
  We find that a model's generalization behavior can be effectively characterized by a training metric we call pre-memorization train accuracy. By connecting a model's learning behavior to its generalization, pre-memorization train accuracy can guide targeted improvements to training strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T09:52:40Z)
• XAL: EXplainable Active Learning Makes Classifiers Better Low-resource Learners [71.8257151788923]
  We propose a novel Explainable Active Learning framework (XAL) for low-resource text classification.<n>XAL encourages classifiers to justify their inferences and delve into unlabeled data for which they cannot provide reasonable explanations.<n>Experiments on six datasets show that XAL achieves consistent improvement over 9 strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T08:07:04Z)
• A Lightweight Generative Model for Interpretable Subject-level Prediction [0.07989135005592125]
  We propose a technique for single-subject prediction that is inherently interpretable. Experiments demonstrate that the resulting model can be efficiently inverted to make accurate subject-level predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:20:29Z)
• Learning Sample Difficulty from Pre-trained Models for Reliable Prediction [55.77136037458667]
  We propose to utilize large-scale pre-trained models to guide downstream model training with sample difficulty-aware entropy regularization. We simultaneously improve accuracy and uncertainty calibration across challenging benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T07:29:23Z)
• ASPEST: Bridging the Gap Between Active Learning and Selective Prediction [56.001808843574395]
  Selective prediction aims to learn a reliable model that abstains from making predictions when uncertain. Active learning aims to lower the overall labeling effort, and hence human dependence, by querying the most informative examples. In this work, we introduce a new learning paradigm, active selective prediction, which aims to query more informative samples from the shifted target domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T23:51:07Z)
• Refining neural network predictions using background knowledge [68.35246878394702]
  We show we can use logical background knowledge in learning system to compensate for a lack of labeled training data. We introduce differentiable refinement functions that find a corrected prediction close to the original prediction. This algorithm finds optimal refinements on complex SAT formulas in significantly fewer iterations and frequently finds solutions where gradient descent can not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-10T10:17:59Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation for Language Reward Models [5.33024001730262]
  Language models can learn a range of capabilities from unsupervised training on text corpora. It is often easier for humans to choose between options than to provide labeled data, and prior work has achieved state-of-the-art performance by training a reward model from such preference comparisons. We seek to address these problems via uncertainty estimation, which can improve sample efficiency and robustness using active learning and risk-averse reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T20:13:21Z)
• On the Lack of Robust Interpretability of Neural Text Classifiers [14.685352584216757]
  We assess the robustness of interpretations of neural text classifiers based on pretrained Transformer encoders. Both tests show surprising deviations from expected behavior, raising questions about the extent of insights that practitioners may draw from interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-08T18:31:02Z)
• Low-Regret Active learning [64.36270166907788]
  We develop an online learning algorithm for identifying unlabeled data points that are most informative for training. At the core of our work is an efficient algorithm for sleeping experts that is tailored to achieve low regret on predictable (easy) instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-06T22:53:45Z)
• A framework for predicting, interpreting, and improving Learning Outcomes [0.0]
  We develop an Embibe Score Quotient model (ESQ) to predict test scores based on observed academic, behavioral and test-taking features of a student. ESQ can be used to predict the future scoring potential of a student as well as offer personalized learning nudges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T11:22:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.