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.

Code language models, while widely popular, are often trained on unsanitized source code gathered from across the Internet. Previous work revealed that pre-trained models can remember the content of their training data and regurgitate them through data extraction attacks. Due to the large size of current models, only a few entities have the resources for pre-training such models. However, fine-tuning requires fewer resources and is increasingly used by both small and large entities for its effectiveness on specialized data. Such small curated data for finetuning might contain sensitive information or proprietary assets. In this study, we attack both pre-trained and fine-tuned code language models to investigate the extent of data extractability. We first develop a custom benchmark to assess the vulnerability of both pre-training and fine-tuning samples to extraction attacks. Our findings reveal that $54.9 \%$ of extractable pre-training data could be retrieved from StarCoder2-15B, whereas this number decreased to $\mathbf{2 3. 5 \%}$ after fine-tuning. This indicates that finetuning reduces the extractability of pre-training data. However, compared to larger models, fine-tuning smaller models increases their vulnerability to data extraction attacks on fine-tuning data. Given the potential sensitivity of fine-tuning data, this can lead to more severe consequences. Lastly, we also manually analyzed 2000 extractable samples before and after fine-tuning. We also found that data carriers and licensing information are the most likely data categories to be memorized from pre-trained and finetuned models, while the latter is the most likely to be forgotten after fine-tuning.

Transformer-based pre-trained models have recently achieved great results in solving many software engineering tasks including automatic code completion which is a staple in a developer’s toolkit. While many have striven to improve the code-understanding abilities of such models, the opposite – making the code easier to understand – has not been properly investigated. In this study, we aim to answer whether making code easier to understand through using contextual data improves the performance of pre-trained code language models for the task of code completion. We consider type annotations and comments as two common forms of additional contextual information that often help developers understand code better. For the experiments, we study code completion in two granularity levels; token and line completion and take three recent and large-scale language models for source code: UniXcoder, CodeGPT, and InCoder with five evaluation metrics. Finally, we perform the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to gauge significance and measure the effect size. Contrary to our expectations, all models perform better if type annotations are removed (albeit the effect sizes are small). For comments, we find that the models perform better in the presence of multi-line comments (again with small effect sizes). Based on our observations, we recommend making proper design choices when training, fine-tuning, or simply selecting such models given the intended data and application. Better evaluations and multimodal techniques can also be further investigated to improve the practicality and accuracy of auto-completions.