Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15195v1
• Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:12:46 GMT
• Title: Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
• Authors: Ramtin Ehsani, Sakshi Pathak, Shriya Rawal, Abdullah Al Mujahid, Mia Mohammad Imran, Preetha Chatterjee,
• Abstract summary: We conduct a large-scale study of 33k agent-authored PRs made by five coding agents across GitHub.<n>We first quantitatively characterize merged and not-merged PRs along four broad dimensions.<n>Not-merged PRs tend to involve larger code changes, touch more files, and often do not pass the project's CI/CD pipeline validation.
• Score: 5.808464460707249
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI coding agents are now submitting pull requests (PRs) to software projects, acting not just as assistants but as autonomous contributors. As these agentic contributions are rapidly increasing across real repositories, little is known about how they behave in practice and why many of them fail to be merged. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale study of 33k agent-authored PRs made by five coding agents across GitHub. (RQ1) We first quantitatively characterize merged and not-merged PRs along four broad dimensions: 1) merge outcomes across task types, 2) code changes, 3) CI build results, and 4) review dynamics. We observe that tasks related to documentation, CI, and build update achieve the highest merge success, whereas performance and bug-fix tasks perform the worst. Not-merged PRs tend to involve larger code changes, touch more files, and often do not pass the project's CI/CD pipeline validation. (RQ2) To further investigate why some agentic PRs are not merged, we qualitatively analyze 600 PRs to derive a hierarchical taxonomy of rejection patterns. This analysis complements the quantitative findings in RQ1 by uncovering rejection reasons not captured by quantitative metrics, including lack of meaningful reviewer engagement, duplicate PRs, unwanted feature implementations, and agent misalignment. Together, our findings highlight key socio-technical and human-AI collaboration factors that are critical to improving the success of future agentic workflows.

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)
• BeyondSWE: Can Current Code Agent Survive Beyond Single-Repo Bug Fixing? [61.247730037229815]
  We introduce BeyondSWE, a comprehensive benchmark that broadens existing evaluations along two axes - resolution scope and knowledge scope.<n>To investigate the role of external knowledge, we develop SearchSWE, a framework that integrates deep search with coding abilities.<n>This work offers both a realistic, challenging evaluation benchmark and a flexible framework to advance research toward more capable code agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T17:52:01Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Bug Fixes: An Empirical Investigation of Post-Merge Code Quality Issues in Agent-Generated Pull Requests [4.744786007044749]
  We analyze 1,210 merged agent-generated bug-fix PRs from Python repositories in the AIDev dataset.<n>Our results show that apparent differences in raw issue counts across agents largely disappear after normalizing by code churn.<n>Across all agents, code smells dominate, particularly at critical and major severities, while bugs are less frequent but often severe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T22:55:05Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• On Autopilot? An Empirical Study of Human-AI Teaming and Review Practices in Open Source [11.412808537439973]
  We investigated project-level guidelines and developers' interactions with AI-assisted pull requests (PRs)<n>We found that over 67.5% of AI-co-authored PRs originate from contributors without prior code ownership.<n>In contrast to human-created PRs where non-owner developers receive the most feedback, AI-co-authored PRs from non-owners receive the least.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:09:53Z)
• 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)
• TeaRAG: A Token-Efficient Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework [62.66056331998838]
  TeaRAG is a token-efficient agentic RAG framework capable of compressing both retrieval content and reasoning steps.<n>Our reward function evaluates the knowledge sufficiency by a knowledge matching mechanism, while penalizing excessive reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T16:08:34Z)
• 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)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• 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)
• Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [60.04362496037186]
  We present the first controlled study of developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants.<n>Our results show agents can assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
• When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements [56.29265568399648]
  We argue that disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space.<n>Disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:24:43Z)
• Evaluating Software Development Agents: Patch Patterns, Code Quality, and Issue Complexity in Real-World GitHub Scenarios [13.949319911378826]
  This study evaluated 4,892 patches from 10 top-ranked agents on 500 real-world GitHub issues.<n>No single agent dominated, with 170 issues unresolved, indicating room for improvement.<n>Most agents maintained code reliability and security, avoiding new bugs or vulnerabilities.<n>Some agents increased code complexity, many reduced code duplication and minimized code smells.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T11:33:57Z)

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.