Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04059v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 11:04:46 GMT
• Title: Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.359007050137919
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Although coding agents have introduced new coordination dynamics in collaborative software development, detailed interactions in practice remain underexplored, especially for the code review process. In this study, we mine agent-authored PR references from the AIDev dataset and introduce a taxonomy to characterize the intent of these references across Human-to-Agent and Agent-to-Agent interactions in the form of Pull Requests (i.e. PRs). Our analysis shows that while humans initiate most references to agent-authored PRs, a substantial portion of these interactions are AI-assisted, indicating the emergence of meta-collaborative workflows, where humans mostly use references to build new features, whereas agents make them to fix errors. We further find that referencing/referenced PRs are associated with substantially longer lifespans and review times compared to isolated PRs, suggesting higher coordination or integration effort. We then list three key takeaways as potential future research directions into how to utilize these dynamics for optimizing AI coding agents in the code review process.

Related papers

• How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests [5.6795075579540395]
  This study aims to characterize agentic pull requests (PR) in comparison to human generated PRs.<n>We first analyze how differences in merge rates between agentic and human generated PRs vary over time.<n>We then identify the types of development tasks where AI coding agents are predominantly applied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T21:48:28Z)
• Code as Agent Harness [107.31925305395957]
  In emerging agentic systems, code is no longer only a target output.<n>Code increasingly serves as an operational substrate for agent reasoning, acting, environment modeling, and execution-based verification.<n>This survey provides a unified roadmap toward executable, verifiable, and stateful AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:03Z)
• These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze code review interactions for AI-generated pull requests (PRs) on GitHub using the AIDev dataset.<n>We find that most AI-generated PRs receive no review and, when reviewed, are largely dominated by AI agents rather than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T06:32:50Z)
• Learning to Retrieve from Agent Trajectories [72.8923565916533]
  We argue that retrieval models for agentic search should be trained directly from agent interaction data.<n>We introduce learning to retrieve from agent trajectories as a new training paradigm, where supervision is derived from multi-step agent interactions.<n>Our results highlight agent trajectories as a practical and scalable supervision source, pointing to a promising direction for retrieval in the era of agentic search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T17:59:02Z)
• Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs [0.991629944808926]
  We conduct a comparative analysis of 7,191 agent-generated PRs with 1402 human-authored PRs from Python repositories.<n>We show that AI agents introduce fewer breaking changes overall than humans (3.45% vs. 7.40%) in code generation tasks.<n>Agents exhibit substantially higher risk during maintenance tasks, with changes introducing breaking changes at rates of 6.72% and 9.35%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-29T05:15:13Z)
• How AI Coding Agents Communicate: A Study of Pull Request Description Characteristics and Human Review Responses [6.061536429904841]
  We conduct an empirical analysis of pull requests created by five AI coding agents using the AIDev dataset.<n>We find that AI coding agents exhibit distinct PR description styles, which are associated with differences in reviewer engagement, response time, and merge outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T05:06:31Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmap [109.53237992384872]
  Deep Research (DR) agents are designed to tackle complex, multi-turn informational research tasks.<n>In this paper, we conduct a detailed analysis of the foundational technologies and architectural components that constitute DR agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T16:52:48Z)
• Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration [72.8998796426346]
  Recent breakthroughs in large language model-driven autonomous agents have revealed that multi-agent collaboration often surpasses each individual through collective reasoning.<n>This study explores whether the continuous addition of collaborative agents can yield similar benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T11:02:04Z)
• AgentCF: Collaborative Learning with Autonomous Language Agents for Recommender Systems [112.76941157194544]
  We propose AgentCF for simulating user-item interactions in recommender systems through agent-based collaborative filtering. We creatively consider not only users but also items as agents, and develop a collaborative learning approach that optimize both kinds of agents together. Overall, the optimized agents exhibit diverse interaction behaviors within our framework, including user-item, user-user, item-item, and collective interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:37:14Z)
• ProAgent: Building Proactive Cooperative Agents with Large Language Models [89.53040828210945]
  ProAgent is a novel framework that harnesses large language models to create proactive agents. ProAgent can analyze the present state, and infer the intentions of teammates from observations. ProAgent exhibits a high degree of modularity and interpretability, making it easily integrated into various coordination scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T10:36:56Z)
• RACA: Relation-Aware Credit Assignment for Ad-Hoc Cooperation in Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning [55.55009081609396]
  We propose a novel method, called Relation-Aware Credit Assignment (RACA), which achieves zero-shot generalization in ad-hoc cooperation scenarios. RACA takes advantage of a graph-based encoder relation to encode the topological structure between agents. Our method outperforms baseline methods on the StarCraftII micromanagement benchmark and ad-hoc cooperation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-02T03:39:27Z)

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.