Do AI Agents Really Improve Code Readability?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13723v1
• Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 03:01:10 GMT
• Title: Do AI Agents Really Improve Code Readability?
• Abstract summary: Poor readability extends development time, increases bug-inducing risks, and contributes to technical debt.<n>With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models, AI agent-based approaches have emerged as a promising paradigm for automated decomposing complex tasks.<n>This study investigates the impact of AI agent-based specifically improves code readability.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code readability is fundamental to software quality and maintainability. Poor readability extends development time, increases bug-inducing risks, and contributes to technical debt. With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models, AI agent-based approaches have emerged as a promising paradigm for automated refactoring, capable of decomposing complex tasks through autonomous planning and execution. While prior studies have examined refactoring by AI agents, these analyses cover all forms of refactoring, including performance optimization and structural improvement. As a result, the extent to which AI agent-based refactoring specifically improves code readability remains unclear. This study investigates the impact of AI agent-based refactoring on code readability. We extracted commits containing readability-related keywords from the AIDev dataset and analyzed changes in readability metrics before and after each commit, covering 403 commits evaluated using multiple quantitative metrics. Our results indicate that AI agents primarily target logic complexity (42.4%) and documentation improvements (24.2%) rather than surface-level aspects like naming conventions or formatting. However, contrary to expectations, readability-focused commits often degraded traditional quality metrics: the Maintainability Index decreased in 56.1% of commits, while Cyclomatic Complexity increased in 42.7%.

Related papers

• Quality and Security Signals in AI-Generated Python Refactoring Pull Requests [0.0]
  We conduct an empirical study of Python pull requests (PRs) from the AIDev dataset.<n>We analyze agentic PRs using PyQu, an ML-based quality assessment tool for Python.<n>Our results show that, on average, agentic commits improve a quality attribute in 22.5% of the studied changes.<n>At the same time, 24.17% of modified files introduce new Pylint issues predominantly convention level violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T17:43:36Z)
• AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide [107.0834449839233]
  We present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle.<n>We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy.<n>We show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:08:26Z)
• Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs [0.991629944808926]
  We conduct a comparative analysis of 7,191 agent-generated PRs with 1402 human-authored PRs from Python repositories.<n>We show that AI agents introduce fewer breaking changes overall than humans (3.45% vs. 7.40%) in code generation tasks.<n>Agents exhibit substantially higher risk during maintenance tasks, with changes introducing breaking changes at rates of 6.72% and 9.35%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-29T05:15:13Z)
• SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks [55.76734816061826]
  We introduce SlopCodeBench, a language-agnostic benchmark comprising 20 problems and 93 checkpoints.<n>We track two trajectory-level quality signals: verbosity, the fraction of redundant or duplicated code, and structural erosion.<n>No agent solves any problem end-to-end across 11 models; the highest checkpoint solve rate is 17.2%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T19:26:44Z)
• Dynamic analysis enhances issue resolution [53.50448142467294]
  DAIRA (Dynamic Analysis-enhanced Issue Resolution Agent) is an automated repair framework that embeds dynamic analysis into the agent's reasoning cycle.<n> Driven by a Test Tracing-Driven methodology, DAIRA utilizes lightweight monitors to extract critical runtime data.<n>When powered by Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DAIRA establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, achieving a 79.4% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T14:48:54Z)
• Improving Code Comprehension through Cognitive-Load Aware Automated Refactoring for Novice Programmers [2.824062086518866]
  Novice programmers often struggle to comprehend code due to vague naming, deep nesting, and poor structural organization.<n>We propose code as cognitive scaffolding, where cognitively guided automatically restructures code to improve clarity.<n>We operationalize this in CDDRefactorER, an automated approach grounded in Cognitive-Driven Development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T17:01:44Z)
• AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development [12.50615284537175]
  Large language model (LLM) based coding agents increasingly act as autonomous contributors that generate and merge pull requests.<n>We present a longitudinal causal study of agent adoption in open-source repositories using staggered difference-in-differences with matched controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T04:51:56Z)
• Code Refactoring with LLM: A Comprehensive Evaluation With Few-Shot Settings [0.0]
  This study aims to develop a framework capable of performing accurate and efficient code across languages (C, C++, C#, Python, Java)<n>Java achieves the highest overall correctness up to 99.99% the 10-shot setting, records the highest average compilability of 94.78% compared to the original source code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T14:47:52Z)
• Agentic Refactoring: An Empirical Study of AI Coding Agents [9.698067623031909]
  Agentic coding tools, such as OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor, are transforming the software engineering landscape.<n>These AI-powered systems function as autonomous teammates capable of planning and executing complex development tasks.<n>There is a critical lack of empirical understanding regarding how agentic is utilized in practice, how it compares to human-driven, and what impact it has on code quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T21:24:38Z)
• Dissect-and-Restore: AI-based Code Verification with Transient Refactoring [1.2883590530210827]
  We present Prometheus, a novel AI-assisted system that facilitates automated code verification with current AI capabilities.<n>Prometheus guides the proof search through structured decomposition of complex lemmas into smaller, verifiable sub-lemmas.<n>This approach successfully verifies 86% of tasks in our curated dataset, compared to 68% for the baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T11:23:50Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• Refactoring $\neq$ Bug-Inducing: Improving Defect Prediction with Code Change Tactics Analysis [54.361900378970134]
  Just-in-time defect prediction (JIT-DP) aims to predict the likelihood of code changes resulting in software defects at an early stage.<n>Prior research has largely ignored code during both the evaluation and methodology phases, despite its prevalence.<n>We propose Code chAnge Tactics (CAT) analysis to categorize code and its propagation, which improves labeling accuracy in the JIT-Defects4J dataset by 13.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T23:29:25Z)
• Thinking Longer, Not Larger: Enhancing Software Engineering Agents via Scaling Test-Time Compute [61.00662702026523]
  We propose a unified Test-Time Compute scaling framework that leverages increased inference-time instead of larger models.<n>Our framework incorporates two complementary strategies: internal TTC and external TTC.<n>We demonstrate our textbf32B model achieves a 46% issue resolution rate, surpassing significantly larger models such as DeepSeek R1 671B and OpenAI o1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T07:31:32Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)

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.