What to Cut? Predicting Unnecessary Methods in Agentic Code Generation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic Coding, powered by autonomous agents such as GitHub Copilot and Cursor, enables developers to generate code, tests, and pull requests from natural language instructions alone. While this accelerates implementation, it produces larger volumes of code per pull request, shifting the burden from implementers to reviewers. In practice, a notable portion of AI-generated code is eventually deleted during review, yet reviewers must still examine such code before deciding to remove it. No prior work has explored methods to help reviewers efficiently identify code that will be removed.In this paper, we propose a prediction model that identifies functions likely to be deleted during PR review. Our results show that functions deleted for different reasons exhibit distinct characteristics, and our model achieves an AUC of 87.1%. These findings suggest that predictive approaches can help reviewers prioritize their efforts on essential code.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.
Builds on
10 of 23 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 9
- 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 264
- 2025Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivitycited by 93
- 2022Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programmingcited by 91
- 2025Human-Written vs. AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Study of Defects, Vulnerabilities, and Complexitycited by 16
- 2025Investigating The Smells of LLM Generated Codecited by 9
- 2025A Taxonomy of Inefficiencies in LLM-Generated Python Codecited by 8
- 2025DCE-LLM: Dead Code Elimination with Large Language Modelscited by 2
- 2025Are Classical Clone Detectors Good Enough For the AI Era?cited by 2
- 2025ActRef: Enhancing the Understanding of Python Code Refactoring with Action-Based Analysiscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Taskscited by 24
- 2026To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editingcited by 1
- 2026Where Did the Variability Go? From Vibe Coding to Product Lines by Regenerationcited by 0
- 2026TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimizationcited by 0
- 2026Can Agents Design Libraries for Agents?cited by 0
- 2026Can Agents Design Libraries for Agents?29 Sep 2026
- 2026To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editing30 Jul 2026
- 2026TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimization20 Jul 2026
- 2026Where Did the Variability Go? From Vibe Coding to Product Lines by Regeneration17 Jun 2026
- 2026SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks25 Mar 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild
- 2026From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale
- 2026Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests
- 2026Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical Study
- 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time
- 2026CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents
- 2026Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review
- 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review