Skip to content

AI Agent Pull Requests on GitHub: Frequency, Structure, and Merge Conflict Rates

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.04697 · 0 citations · 13 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The AIDev-pop dataset is used to provide the first empirical examination of the prevalence of concurrent submission using PRs authored by agents, and a classification system based on the detection of conflict reported by git is developed.

Abstract

AI coding agents may generate and submit Pull Requests (PRs) to the same repository at the same time. However, research concerning the extent of concurrent submission by AI coding agents to a common repository does not exist. This paper uses the AIDev-pop dataset (33,596 PRs in 2,807 repositories) to provide the first empirical examination of the prevalence of concurrent submission using PRs authored by agents. We report that when considering exact temporal overlap, 40.2% of repositories contain co-active agent-authored PR pairs; further, the co-active pairs account for 79.4% of all PRs generated by an AI agent. When we examine co-activity within a one week collaboration window, the percentages are increased to 53.4% and 95.0%, respectively. For the majority of the co-active PR pairs (underlying the vast majority of which are intra-agent authored), both PRs were authored by the same agent, while only 0.5% of co-active pairs were cross-agent, and occurred in only 122 out of 2807 total repositories examined (or approximately 4.3%). Additionally, we replayed actual three way git merges on 747 unique co-active pairs (one per repository), and computed the percentage of textual conflict encountered during the merge operation to combine the two PRs in each pair. We observed that the percentage of textual conflict encountered was significantly higher for cross-agent pairs compared to intra-agent pairs: 41.7% vs. 19.8%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Lastly, we developed a classification system based on the detection of conflict reported by git, and determined that the majority of conflicts resulted from modifications to source code files (84.4% of conflicted files) and not dependency manifest files; further, nearly 42% of conflicts we observed were structural (i.e., modify/delete or add/add).

View source

Similar papers

Review Aug 2026

AI-to-AI Code Reviews of GitHub Pull Requests

Overall, closed-loop AI-to-AI review is increasing but remains a minority of identified agent activity, with review output varying across authoring-agent groups and product configurations.

Niruthiha Selvanayagam, T. A. Ghaleb · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Review Aug 2026

AgentLogs: A Dataset for Opening the Black Box of GitHub's Cloud Agent

A large-scale dataset of agent activity on GitHub, exposing not only what agents contribute but also how they work enables research on agent behavior, efficiency and cost, task formulation, failure modes, and human-agent collaboration in agentic software engineering.

Jonan Richards, Kosei Horikawa, You-Mei Fan et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Book Open access Aug 2026

Cost-Effective Repository Exploration for Agentic Issue Localization

The results support treating repository exploration as an independently measurable and budgetable stage of modular coding agents, with explorer selection guided by the downstream handoff contract.

Mohammad Nour Al Awad, Sergey Ivanov · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

Loreley: Repository-Scale Program Evolution with Quality-Diversity Search

This work compares configured Loreley QD, sequential champion editing, and independent root proposals in a matched Zstandard experiment and finds that Sequential had the highest observed 48-job mean and median and established a QD advantage.

Mo Chen · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Scrouting: Cost-Aware Routing of Coding Agents by Scouting the Repository First

SuperScout is presented, which routes after scouting the repository: a 7B searcher, SuperScout-7B, first explores the repository and produces a structured handoff whose reproduction claims are sandbox-verified, with false claims stripped before delivery.

Ishaan Bhola, Adithya Krishnan, NS Mukunda · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

ForestBench: A Unified Graph Framework for Evaluating Multi-Agent Collaboration

This work introduces a generalizable evaluation framework that maps native MAS traces into a shared space of unified collaboration graphs, enabling different methods to be evaluated under the same representation, reference set, and metric panel.

Guo Chen, Ziwen Li, Reed Li et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.