Understanding the Rejection of Fixes Generated by Agentic Pull Requests -- Insights from the AIDev Dataset

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13468v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 15:19:36 GMT
• Title: Understanding the Rejection of Fixes Generated by Agentic Pull Requests -- Insights from the AIDev Dataset
• Abstract summary: We find that 46.41% of the fixes proposed by the agents Copilot, Devin, Cursor, and Claude are rejected.<n>Our goal in this paper is to understand the failure modes of AI-agents, an understanding that is crucial for better integrating AI-agents as efficient teammates.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly used to generate pull requests (PRs) that propose code fixes in software projects. From a first exploration of the AIDev dataset, we find that 46.41\% of the fixes proposed by the agents Copilot, Devin, Cursor, and Claude are rejected. This represents a significant amount of wasted resources that require human reviews, verifications, and running tests and validations for fixes that are merely discarded. Our goal in this paper is to understand the failure modes of AI-agents, an understanding that is crucial for better integrating AI-agents as efficient teammates. In this paper, we conduct a qualitative study on a representative sample of 306 non-merged pull requests created or co-authored by the agents mentioned earlier, followed by a quantitative analysis of the reasons for rejection. Our qualitative findings identify 14 reasons divided into four high-level categories for rejecting AI-agent fixes. We observe that developers can reject fixes due to fixes whose implementation is incorrect (e.g., incomplete, wrong approach), fixes that do not pass the continuous integration (CI) pipelines and fail tests, fixes for which the agent is unable to perform the implementation (e.g., no code generated, sessions lost), and fixes whose priority is low. Our results shed light on the importance of better guiding the model at these levels: (1) proposing hints about the approach to follow for fixing an issue, (2) outlining constraints or limitations regarding the approaches that should not be taken, and (3) instructing the agent on how to validate the implementation through CI pipelines and without introducing a breaking change. Our results suggest the need for good prioritization of tasks so that generated fixes do not lead to wasted human review efforts or wasted agent resources (e.g., tokens, compute, or allowed number of requests).

Related papers

• AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifier [63.55502685076245]
  Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS)<n>We propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process.<n>We show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T12:27:36Z)
• 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)
• To Search or Not to Search: Aligning the Decision Boundary of Deep Search Agents via Causal Intervention [61.82680155643223]
  We identify the root cause of misaligned decision boundaries, the threshold determining when accumulated information suffices to answer.<n>This causes over-search (redundant searching despite sufficient knowledge) and under-search (premature termination yielding incorrect answers.<n>We propose a comprehensive framework comprising two key components. First, we introduce causal intervention-based diagnosis that identifies boundary errors.<n>Second, we develop Decision Boundary Alignment for Deep Search agents (DAS)<n>Our DAS method effectively calibrates these boundaries, mitigating both over-search and under-search to achieve substantial gains in accuracy and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T09:29:06Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)
• AI Agents That Matter [11.794931453828974]
  AI agents are an exciting new research direction, and agent development is driven by benchmarks. There is a narrow focus on accuracy without attention to other metrics. benchmarking needs of model and downstream developers have been conflated. Many agent benchmarks have inadequate holdout sets, and sometimes none at all.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T17:48:14Z)
• Formalizing the Problem of Side Effect Regularization [81.97441214404247]
  We propose a formal criterion for side effect regularization via the assistance game framework. In these games, the agent solves a partially observable Markov decision process. We show that this POMDP is solved by trading off the proxy reward with the agent's ability to achieve a range of future tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T16:36:13Z)

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.