mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Will It Survive? Deciphering the Fate of AI-Generated Code in Open Source

arXiv 2601.16809 ↗First posted 23 Jan 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The integration of AI agents as coding assistants into software development has raised questions about the long-term viability of AI agent-generated code. A prevailing hypothesis within the software engineering community suggests this code is "disposable", meaning it is merged quickly but discarded shortly thereafter. If true, organizations risk shifting maintenance burden from generation to post-deployment remediation. We investigate this hypothesis through survival analysis of 201 open-source projects, tracking over 200,000 code units authored by AI agents versus humans. Contrary to the disposable code narrative, agent-authored code survives significantly longer: at the line level, it exhibits a 15.8 percentage-point lower modification rate and 16% lower hazard of modification (HR = 0.842, p < 0.001). However, modification profiles differ. Agent-authored code shows modestly elevated corrective rates (26.3% vs. 23.0%), while human code shows higher adaptive rates. However, the effect sizes are small (Cram'er's V = 0.116), and per-agent variation exceeds the agent-human gap. Turning to prediction, textual features can identify modification-prone code (AUC-ROC = 0.671), but predicting when modifications occur remains challenging (Macro F1 = 0.285), suggesting timing depends on external organizational dynamics. The bottleneck for agent-generated code may not be generation quality, but the organizational practices that govern its long-term evolution.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jan 2026.

Builds on

13 of 56 references.

References · 13

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 468
  5. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
  6. 2019Taxonomy of Real Faults in Deep Learning Systemscited by 90
  7. 2019A Comprehensive Study on Deep Learning Bug Characteristicscited by 65
  8. 2021SPI: Automated Identification of Security Patches via Commitscited by 19
  9. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHubcited by 10
  10. 2017Boosting Automatic Commit Classification Into Maintenance Activities By Utilizing Source Code Changescited by 8
  11. 2020Explainable AI for Software Engineeringcited by 8
  12. 2018AutoSpearman: Automatically Mitigating Correlated Metrics for Interpreting Defect Modelscited by 4
1 more
  1. 2023Understanding the Time to First Response In GitHub Pull Requestscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.