A Study of Library Usage in Agent-Authored Pull Requests

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11589v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:21:37 GMT
• Title: A Study of Library Usage in Agent-Authored Pull Requests
• Abstract summary: We study 26,760 agent-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset.<n>We find that agents often import libraries but rarely add new dependencies.<n>We find that agents draw from a surprisingly diverse set of external libraries.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Coding agents are becoming increasingly capable of completing end-to-end software engineering workflows that previously required a human developer, including raising pull requests (PRs) to propose their changes. However, we still know little about how these agents use libraries when generating code, a core part of real-world software development. To fill this gap, we study 26,760 agent-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset to examine three questions: how often do agents import libraries, how often do they introduce new dependencies (and with what versioning), and which specific libraries do they choose? We find that agents often import libraries (29.5% of PRs) but rarely add new dependencies (1.3% of PRs); and when they do, they follow strong versioning practices (75.0% specify a version), an improvement on direct LLM usage where versions are rarely mentioned. Generally, agents draw from a surprisingly diverse set of external libraries, contrasting with the limited "library preferences" seen in prior non-agentic LLM studies. Our results offer an early empirical view into how AI coding agents interact with today's software ecosystems.

Related papers

• ToFu: A White-Box, Token-Efficient Agent Harness for Researchers [73.72929185946842]
  ToFu is an agentic harness for researchers that reads your files, edits files, runs commands, and integrates with your development tools.<n>As a research assistant, it supports practical research with superior token efficiency, lower cost, and multilingual capability.<n>As a research object, ToFu provides a white-box agentic harness that allows researchers to inspect, modify, and evaluate its orchestration logic, tool-use behavior, and harness design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T11:26:06Z)
• Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice [4.359007050137919]
  We introduce a taxonomy to characterize the intent of agent-authored PR references across Human-to-Agent and Agent-to-Agent interactions.<n>Our analysis shows that while humans initiate most references to agent-authored PRs, a substantial portion of these interactions are AI-assisted.<n>We find that referencing/referenced PRs are associated with substantially longer lifespan and review times compared to isolated PRs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:04:46Z)
• Why Agentic-PRs Get Rejected: A Comparative Study of Coding Agents [0.0]
  We show that Pull Requests produced using coding agents (Agentic-PRs) are accepted less often than PRs that are not labeled as agentic (Human-PRs)<n>A large proportion of rejected PRs lack explicit feedback, making their rejection reasons difficult to determine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T05:24:18Z)
• Why Are AI Agent Involved Pull Requests (Fix-Related) Remain Unmerged? An Empirical Study [5.127121704630949]
  We analyze 8,106 fix related PRs authored by five widely used AI coding agents from the AIDEV POP dataset.<n>Our results indicate that test case failures and prior resolution of the same issues by other PRs are the most common causes of non integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T22:06:58Z)
• AgentIF-OneDay: A Task-level Instruction-Following Benchmark for General AI Agents in Daily Scenarios [49.90735676070039]
  The capacity of AI agents to effectively handle tasks of increasing duration and complexity continues to grow.<n>We argue that current evaluations prioritize increasing task difficulty without sufficiently addressing the diversity of agentic tasks.<n>We propose AgentIF-OneDay, aimed at determining whether general users can utilize natural language instructions and AI agents to complete a diverse array of daily tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:49:18Z)
• Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents [4.744786007044749]
  We study how core and peripheral developers use, review, modify, and verify agent-generated contributions prior to acceptance.<n>A subset of peripheral developers use agents more often, delegating tasks evenly across bug fixing, feature addition, documentation, and testing.<n>In contrast, core developers focus more on documentation and testing, yet their agentic PRs are frequently merged into the main/master branch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T22:50:01Z)
• On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub [6.7302091035327285]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into software development processes.<n>The ability to generate code and submit pull requests with minimal human intervention, through the use of autonomous AI agents, is poised to become a standard practice.<n>We empirically study 567 GitHub pull requests (PRs) generated using Claude Code, an agentic coding tool, across 157 open-source projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T08:48:32Z)
• How Robust are LLM-Generated Library Imports? An Empirical Study using Stack Overflow [3.076436880934678]
  We conduct an empirical study of six Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We analyze the types of libraries they import, the characteristics of those libraries, and the extent to which the recommendations are usable out of the box.<n>Our results show that LLMs predominantly favour third-party libraries over standard ones, and often recommend mature, popular, and permissively licensed dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T21:35:29Z)
• AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarios [51.46347732659174]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities in real-world agentic applications.<n>AgentIF is the first benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM instruction following ability in agentic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T17:31:10Z)
• Commit0: Library Generation from Scratch [77.38414688148006]
  Commit0 is a benchmark that challenges AI agents to write libraries from scratch.<n>Agents are provided with a specification document outlining the library's API as well as a suite of interactive unit tests.<n> Commit0 also offers an interactive environment where models receive static analysis and execution feedback on the code they generate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T18:11:30Z)
• Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents [12.19683999553113]
  We build Agentless -- an agentless approach to automatically solve software development problems. Compared to the verbose and complex setup of agent-based approaches, Agentless employs a simplistic three-phase process of localization, repair, and patch validation. Our results on the popular SWE-bench Lite benchmark show that surprisingly the simplistic Agentless is able to achieve both the highest performance and low cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T17:24:45Z)
• Alibaba LingmaAgent: Improving Automated Issue Resolution via Comprehensive Repository Exploration [64.19431011897515]
  This paper presents Alibaba LingmaAgent, a novel Automated Software Engineering method designed to comprehensively understand and utilize whole software repositories for issue resolution.<n>Our approach introduces a top-down method to condense critical repository information into a knowledge graph, reducing complexity, and employs a Monte Carlo tree search based strategy.<n>In production deployment and evaluation at Alibaba Cloud, LingmaAgent automatically resolved 16.9% of in-house issues faced by development engineers, and solved 43.3% of problems after manual intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T15:20:06Z)
• Experiential Co-Learning of Software-Developing Agents [83.34027623428096]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant changes to various domains, especially in software development. We introduce Experiential Co-Learning, a novel LLM-agent learning framework. Experiments demonstrate that the framework enables agents to tackle unseen software-developing tasks more effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T13:50:42Z)
• Agents: An Open-source Framework for Autonomous Language Agents [98.91085725608917]
  We consider language agents as a promising direction towards artificial general intelligence. We release Agents, an open-source library with the goal of opening up these advances to a wider non-specialist audience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T17:18:25Z)
• An Empirical Study of Library Usage and Dependency in Deep Learning Frameworks [12.624032509149869]
  pytorch, Caffe, and Scikit-learn are the most frequent combination in 18% and 14% of the projects. The developer uses two or three dl libraries in the same projects and tends to use different multiple dl libraries in both the same function and the same files.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T19:31:56Z)
• Do Not Take It for Granted: Comparing Open-Source Libraries for Software Development Effort Estimation [9.224578642189023]
  This paper aims at raising awareness of the differences incurred when using different Machine Learning (ML) libraries for software development effort estimation (SEE) We investigate 4 deterministic machine learners as provided by 3 of the most popular ML open-source libraries written in different languages (namely, Scikit-Learn, Caret and Weka) The results of our study reveal that the predictions provided by the 3 libraries differ in 95% of the cases on average across a total of 105 cases studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T20:06:40Z)

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.