Beyond Bug Fixes: An Empirical Investigation of Post-Merge Code Quality Issues in Agent-Generated Pull Requests

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20109v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 22:55:05 GMT
• Title: Beyond Bug Fixes: An Empirical Investigation of Post-Merge Code Quality Issues in Agent-Generated Pull Requests
• Authors: Shamse Tasnim Cynthia, Al Muttakin, Banani Roy,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.744786007044749
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing adoption of AI coding agents has increased the number of agent-generated pull requests (PRs) merged with little or no human intervention. Although such PRs promise productivity gains, their post-merge code quality remains underexplored, as prior work has largely relied on benchmarks and controlled tasks rather than large-scale post-merge analyses. To address this gap, we analyze 1,210 merged agent-generated bug-fix PRs from Python repositories in the AIDev dataset. Using SonarQube, we perform a differential analysis between base and merged commits to identify code quality issues newly introduced by PR changes. We examine issue frequency, density, severity, and rule-level prevalence across five agents. Our results show that apparent differences in raw issue counts across agents largely disappear after normalizing by code churn, indicating that higher issue counts are primarily driven by larger PRs. Across all agents, code smells dominate, particularly at critical and major severities, while bugs are less frequent but often severe. Overall, our findings show that merge success does not reliably reflect post-merge code quality, highlighting the need for systematic quality checks for agent-generated bug-fix PRs.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub [5.808464460707249]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T17:12:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• MAMM-Refine: A Recipe for Improving Faithfulness in Generation with Multi-Agent Collaboration [63.31211701741323]
  We extend multi-agent multi-model reasoning to generation, specifically to improving faithfulness through refinement.<n>We design intrinsic evaluations for each subtask, with our findings indicating that both multi-agent (multiple instances) and multi-model (diverse LLM types) approaches benefit error detection and critiquing.<n>We consolidate these insights into a final "recipe" called Multi-Agent Multi-Model Refinement (MAMM-Refine), where multi-agent and multi-model collaboration significantly boosts performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T14:46:53Z)
• 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)
• LLMs as Continuous Learners: Improving the Reproduction of Defective Code in Software Issues [62.12404317786005]
  EvoCoder is a continuous learning framework for issue code reproduction. Our results show a 20% improvement in issue reproduction rates over existing SOTA methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T08:49:23Z)
• 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)
• On the Use and Misuse of Absorbing States in Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning [55.95253619768565]
  Current MARL algorithms assume that the number of agents within a group remains fixed throughout an experiment. In many practical problems, an agent may terminate before their teammates. We present a novel architecture for an existing state-of-the-art MARL algorithm which uses attention instead of a fully connected layer with absorbing states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-10T23:45:08Z)

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.