arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2602.02345cs.SE
收藏

对开源项目中AI代理的任务级评估

A Task-Level Evaluation of AI Agents in Open-Source Projects

Idaho State University(爱达荷州立大学)

Shojibur Rahman, Md Fazle Rabbi, Minhaz Zibran

AI总结:

本文评估了五个AI代理在开源项目中的表现,发现Codex在PR接受率上表现优异,而Copilot在审查讨论量上领先,但提交质量因任务类型而异。

摘要:

在本文中,我们使用AIDev-pop公共数据集,该数据集包含成千上万的人工智能生成的拉取请求(PR),用于对五个自主编码代理进行比较研究。我们沿着PR生命周期 spanning 三个任务感知的维度评估代理的性能:(1)PR接受率,(2)审查讨论量,以及(3)提交信息质量。我们的定量分析发现,Codex在大多数任务类别中 consistently 都能实现较高的PR接受率,而Copilot的PR触发了最高的人类和自动化审查讨论量。相比之下,提交级别的质量独立于接受结果而变化。Claude和Cursor在几种任务类型中产生了更高比例的高质量提交信息,而Codex尽管有较强的集成结果,但表现出相对较低的提交质量。我们的发现为AI代理的选择和改进提供了信息,以有效集成到协作软件工程中。

英文摘要:

In this paper, we present a comparative study of five autonomous coding agents using AIDev-pop, which is a public dataset containing thousands of AI-generated pull requests (PRs) across popular open-source repositories. We evaluate agents' performance along three task-aware dimensions spanning the PR lifecycle: (1) PR acceptance rate, (2) review discussion volume, and (3) commit message quality. Our quantitative analysis finds that Codex consistently achieves high PR acceptance rates across most task categories, while Copilot's PRs trigger the highest volume of both human and automated review discussions. In contrast, commit-level quality varies independently of acceptance outcomes. Claude and Cursor produce higher proportions of high-quality commit messages across several task types, and Codex exhibiting comparatively lower commit quality despite strong integration outcomes. Our findings inform selection and improvements of AI agents for their effective integration to collaborative software engineering.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑