Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study analyzes the AIDev dataset to investigate the high rejection rate of code fixes proposed by AI coding agents, finding that 46.41% of these fixes are discarded. Through qualitative and quantitative analyses of 306 non-merged pull requests, the authors identify 14 distinct reasons for rejection, categorized into four main areas, including incorrect implementations and failures to pass CI pipelines. The findings highlight critical areas for improving AI-agent performance, emphasizing the need for better guidance on fix proposals and prioritization to reduce wasted resources in software development.
Nearly half of AI-generated code fixes are rejected, revealing significant inefficiencies in current AI coding agents that could waste developer time and resources.
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).
