Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2601.05485

Readability-Robust Code Summarization via Meta Curriculum Learning

Abstract

Code summarization has emerged as a fundamental technique in the field of program comprehension. While code language models have shown significant advancements, the current models and benchmarks are confined to high-readability code, which contains sufficient semantic cues such as function and variable names. In the real world, however, code is often poorly structured or obfuscated, significantly degrading model performance. In this paper, we first empirically evaluate the robustness of state-of-the-art language models on poor-readability code for the task of code summarization, focusing on (1) their effectiveness, (2) the impact of prompt engineering, and (3) the robustness of different variants. Experimental results reveal that state-of-the-art models-including GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 experience a substantial performance drop when faced with poorly readable code, and that prompt engineering and reasoning-enhanced models offer limited improvements. Motivated by these findings, we propose RoFTCodeSum, a novel fine-tuning method that enhances the robustness of code summarization against poorly readable code. RoFTCodeSum marries the concepts of curriculum learning and meta-learning: based on the original dataset for fine-tuning, it creates curricular training sets, e.g., obfuscating function names and identifiers from the code, respectively, that have progressive difficulty in code comprehension. In each training step, the approach meta-updates the gradients using these progressively challenging datasets, thereby optimizing both accuracy and readability robustness simultaneously. Experimental results demonstrate that RoFTCodeSum exhibits increased robustness against semantic perturbation while enhancing performance on the original code.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wenhao Zeng, Yitian Chai, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, Xiaodong Gu. 2026-07-29. Readability-Robust Code Summarization via Meta Curriculum Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05485

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE