Human-Aligned Code Readability Assessment with Large Language Models

Abstract

Code readability is crucial for software comprehension and maintenance, yet difficult to assess at scale. Traditional static metrics often fail to capture the subjective, context-sensitive nature of human judgments. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a scalable alternative, but their behavior as readability evaluators remains underexplored. We introduce CoReEval, the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating LLM-based code readability assessment, comprising over 1.4 million model-snippet-prompt evaluations across 10 state of the art LLMs. The benchmark spans 3 programming languages (Java, Python, CUDA), 2 code types (functional code and unit tests), 4 prompting strategies (ZSL, FSL, CoT, ToT), 9 decoding settings, and developer-guided prompts tailored to junior and senior personas. We compare LLM outputs against human annotations and a validated static model, analyzing numerical alignment (MAE, Pearson's, Spearman's) and justification quality (sentiment, aspect coverage, semantic clustering). Our findings show that developer-guided prompting grounded in human-defined readability dimensions improves alignment in structured contexts, enhances explanation quality, and enables lightweight personalization through persona framing. However, increased score variability highlights trade-offs between alignment, stability, and interpretability. CoReEval provides a robust foundation for prompt engineering, model alignment studies, and human in the loop evaluation, with applications in education, onboarding, and CI/CD pipelines where LLMs can serve as explainable, adaptable reviewers.

Ähnliche Arbeiten