# Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00917 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00917/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 28 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09938/) (2021)
- [RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17134/) (2024)
- [Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.15000/) (2022)
- [Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04850/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02977/) (2024)
- [SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12952/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Code Generation with LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00083/) (2025)
- [Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09089/) (2025)
- [Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.06537/) (2022)
- [Evaluating the Code Quality of AI-Assisted Code Generation Tools: An Empirical Study on GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10778/) (2023)
- [RepoAgent: An LLM-Powered Open-Source Framework for Repository-level Code Documentation Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16667/) (2024)
- [Quantifying Contamination in Evaluating Code Generation Capabilities of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04811/) (2024)
- [On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.14745/) (2025)
- [Language Models for Code Completion: A Practical Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16197/) (2024)
- [CODESIM: Multi-Agent Code Generation and Problem Solving through Simulation-Driven Planning and Debugging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05664/) (2025)
- [Towards AI-Native Software Engineering (SE 3.0): A Vision and a Challenge Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06107/) (2024)
- [CCT5: A Code-Change-Oriented Pre-Trained Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10785/) (2023)
- [AIBugHunter: A Practical Tool for Predicting, Classifying and Repairing Software Vulnerabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16615/) (2023)
- [Unveiling ChatGPT's Usage in Open Source Projects: A Mining-based Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16480/) (2024)
- [MaintainCoder: Maintainable Code Generation Under Dynamic Requirements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24260/) (2025)
- [Experience with GitHub Copilot for Developer Productivity at Zoominfo](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.13282/) (2025)
- [Does AI Code Review Lead to Code Changes? A Case Study of GitHub Actions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18771/) (2025)
- [The Evolution of Information Seeking in Software Development: Understanding the Role and Impact of AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04032/) (2024)
- [Will Your Next Pair Programming Partner Be Human? An Empirical Evaluation of Generative AI as a Collaborative Teammate in a Semester-Long Classroom Setting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08119/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [From Conversation to Contribution: Characterizing Coding Agent in Open-Source Software](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05677/) (2026)
- [3100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07980/) (2026)
- [How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21832/) (2026)
- [From Agent Behaviour to Agent-Friendly Documentation: An Empirical Study of How Coding Agents Discover, Read, and Write Technical Documentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20195/) (2026)
- [Co-Modifying Application Code and Deployment Infrastructure: A Causal Study of AI Agent Pull Requests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.12849/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The rise of large language models for code has reshaped software development. Autonomous coding agents, able to create branches, open pull requests, and perform code reviews, now actively contribute to real-world projects. Their growing role offers a unique and timely opportunity to investigate AI-driven contributions and their effects on code quality, team dynamics, and software maintainability. In this work, we construct a novel dataset of approximately 110,000 open-source pull requests, including associated commits, comments, reviews, issues, and file changes, collectively representing millions of lines of source code. We compare five popular coding agents, including OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Google Jules, and Devin, examining how their usage differs in various development aspects such as merge frequency, edited file types, and developer interaction signals, including comments and reviews. Furthermore, we emphasize that code authoring and review are only a small part of the larger software engineering process, as the resulting code must also be maintained and updated over time. Hence, we offer several longitudinal estimates of survival and churn rates for agent-generated versus human-authored code. Ultimately, our findings indicate an increasing agent activity in open-source projects, although their contributions are associated with more churn over time compared to human-authored code.