Analyzing Message-Code Inconsistency in AI Coding Agent-Authored Pull Requests

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04886v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 12:31:02 GMT
• Title: Analyzing Message-Code Inconsistency in AI Coding Agent-Authored Pull Requests
• Authors: Jingzhi Gong, Giovanni Pinna, Yixin Bian, Jie M. Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Pull request descriptions generated by AI coding agents are the primary channel for communicating code changes to human reviewers.<n>We analyzed 23,247 agentic PRs across five agents using PR message-code inconsistency (PR-MCI)<n>High-MCI PRs had 51.7% lower acceptance rates and took 3.5x longer to merge.
• Score: 5.885226503818935
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Pull request (PR) descriptions generated by AI coding agents are the primary channel for communicating code changes to human reviewers. However, the alignment between these messages and the actual changes remains unexplored, raising concerns about the trustworthiness of AI agents. To fill this gap, we analyzed 23,247 agentic PRs across five agents using PR message-code inconsistency (PR-MCI). We contributed 974 manually annotated PRs, found 406 PRs (1.7%) exhibited high PR-MCI, and identified eight PR-MCI types, revealing that descriptions claiming unimplemented changes was the most common issue (45.4%). Statistical tests confirmed that high-MCI PRs had 51.7% lower acceptance rates (28.3% vs. 80.0%) and took 3.5x longer to merge (55.8 vs. 16.0 hours). Our findings suggest that unreliable PR descriptions undermine trust in AI agents, highlighting the need for PR-MCI verification mechanisms and improved PR generation to enable trustworthy human-AI collaboration.

Related papers

• AgentIR: Reasoning-Aware Retrieval for Deep Research Agents [76.29382561831105]
  Deep Research agents generate explicit natural language reasoning before each search call.<n> Reasoning-Aware Retrieval embeds the agent's reasoning trace alongside its query.<n>DR- Synth generates Deep Research retriever training data from standard QA datasets.<n>AgentIR-4B achieves 68% accuracy with the open-weight agent Tongyi-DeepResearch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T18:47:26Z)
• 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)
• Code Change Characteristics and Description Alignment: A Comparative Study of Agentic versus Human Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze 33,596 agent-generated PRs and 6,618 human PRs to compare code-change characteristics and message quality.<n>Agents generate stronger commit-level messages but lag humans at PR-level summarization.<n>These findings highlight a gap between agents' micro-level precision and macro-level communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T23:33:07Z)
• How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze 24,014 merged Agentic PRs (440,295 commits) and 5,081 merged Human PRs (23,242 commits)<n>Agentic PRs differ substantially from Human PRs in commit count (Cliff's $= 0.5429$) and show moderate differences in files touched and deleted lines.<n>These findings provide a large-scale empirical characterization of how AI coding agents contribute to open source development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T20:27:04Z)
• Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze 33,707 agent-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset across 2,807 repositories.<n>We propose a Circuit Breaker triage model that predicts high-review-effort PRs at creation time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-02T17:18:01Z)
• Security in the Age of AI Teammates: An Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests on GitHub [4.409447722044799]
  This study aims to characterize how autonomous coding agents contribute to software security in practice.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of agent-authored PRs using the AIDev dataset.<n>We then analyze prevalence, acceptance outcomes, and review latency across autonomous agents, programming ecosystems, and types of code changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-01T21:14:11Z)
• To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis [47.124493265404595]
  Our analysis focuses on objective mistakes-e.g., errors in formulas, derivations, calculations, figures, and tables-that have a clearly verifiable ground truth.<n>We find that published papers contain a non-negligible number of objective mistakes and that the average number of mistakes per paper has increased over time-from 3.8 in NeurIPS 2021 to 5.9 in NeurIPS 2025 (55.3% increase).<n>We show that the AI Checker can propose correct fixes for 75.8% of the identified mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-05T18:04:10Z)
• The AI Attribution Paradox: Transparency as Social Strategy in Open-Source Software Development [0.0]
  We analyze 14,300 GitHub commits across 7,393 repositories from 2023-2025.<n>We investigated attribution strategies and community responses across eight major AI tools.<n>We find developers strategically balance acknowledging AI assistance with managing community scrutiny.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T12:30:55Z)
• Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Building Rational Agents that Explore and Act Like People [81.63702981397408]
  Given limited resources, to what extent do agents based on language models (LMs) act rationally?<n>We develop methods to benchmark and enhance agentic information-seeking, drawing on insights from human behavior.<n>For Spotter agents, our approach boosts accuracy by up to 14.7% absolute over LM-only baselines; for Captain agents, it raises expected information gain (EIG) by up to 0.227 bits (94.2% of the achievable noise ceiling)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T17:57:28Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• SLEAN: Simple Lightweight Ensemble Analysis Network for Multi-Provider LLM Coordination: Design, Implementation, and Vibe Coding Bug Investigation Case Study [0.0]
  SLEAN operates as a simple prompt bridge between LLMs using.txt templates, requiring no deep technical knowledge for deployment.<n>The three-phase protocol formed by independent analysis, cross-critique, and arbitration, filters harmful AI-generated code suggestions.<n>The file-driven, provider-agnostic architecture enables deployment without specialized coding expertise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T04:24:04Z)
• AutoPR: Let's Automate Your Academic Promotion! [50.929742814819036]
  We introduce Automatic Promotion (AutoPR), a novel task that transforms research papers into accurate, engaging, and timely public content.<n>PRAgent is a multi-agent framework that automates AutoPR in three stages: content extraction, collaborative synthesis, and platform-specific adaptation to optimize norms, tone, and tagging for maximum reach.<n>Our results position AutoPR as a tractable, measurable research problem and provide a roadmap for scalable, impactful automated scholarly communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T17:08:36Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• DebUnc: Improving Large Language Model Agent Communication With Uncertainty Metrics [52.242449026151846]
  Multi-agent debates have been introduced to improve the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose DebUnc, a debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T22:15:01Z)

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.