Do AI Agents Really Improve Code Readability?
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
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%.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2026.
Builds on
10 of 40 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 9
- 2021CodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 744
- 2023AI-assisted coding: Experiments with GPT-4cited by 43
- 2024Unveiling ChatGPT's Usage in Open Source Projects: A Mining-based Studycited by 16
- 2024Whodunit: Classifying Code as Human Authored or GPT-4 Generated -- A case study on CodeChef problemscited by 13
- 2023RefBERT: A Two-Stage Pre-trained Framework for Automatic Rename Refactoringcited by 4
- 2024Automated Unit Test Refactoringcited by 4
- 2023How do Developers Improve Code Readability? An Empirical Study of Pull Requestscited by 3
- 2023Introducing Interactions in Multi-Objective Optimization of Software Architecturescited by 2
- 2024Evidence is All We Need: Do Self-Admitted Technical Debts Impact Method-Level Maintenance?cited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Quality and Security Signals in AI-Generated Python Refactoring Pull Requests
- 2025Agentic Refactoring: An Empirical Study of AI Coding Agents
- 2024Evaluating Software Development Agents: Patch Patterns, Code Quality, and Issue Complexity in Real-World GitHub Scenarios
- 2026Is Agent Code Less Maintainable Than Human Code?
- 2026SWE-Bench ProMax: Benchmarking Agents on Large-Scale Multilingual Code Refactoring
- 2026AI builds, We Analyze: An Empirical Study of AI-Generated Build Code Quality
- 2026Does Code Cleanliness Affect Coding Agents? A Controlled Minimal-Pair Study
- 2026A Jagged Frontier: Evaluating Robustness of Code Agents to Semantics-Preserving Transformations