The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Behind Developer Contributions on Conflicting Merge Scenarios
Abstract
Context: The success of Open Source Software (OSS) projects typically depends on simultaneous contributions of several developers. These contributions often affect the same changing source files and may lead to merge conflicts when integrated. Previous studies investigated the reduction of conflicting merge scenarios. However, empirical evidence on the involvement of OSS contributors in conflicting merge scenarios is scarce. Objective: We aim to fill this gap with a large-scale quantitative study with the goal of understanding: 1) the extent in which OSS contributors are involved in conflicting merge scenarios; 2) characteristics of these contributors; and 3) characteristics of changing source files. Method: We collect both contributor data and contribution data from 66 popular GitHub projects and analyze data of 2972 distinct contributors who were involved in at least one conflicting merge scenario. We rely on both descriptive and inferential statistics to address our research questions. Results: About 80% of the analyzed contributors are involved in only one or two conflicting merge scenarios. Additionally, 42 out of the 66 projects had its top-one contributor as the one mostly involved in conflicting merge scenarios. Finally, only a small set of changing source files are involved in conflicting merge scenarios. Conclusions: We advocate that training the typically small group of contributors involved in conflicting merge scenarios could significantly reduce the number of merge conflicts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, existing conflict datasets primarily focus on human-authored changes and do not explicitly consider contributions generated by AI coding agents”
From AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub (2026) · cites this paper as [54]
Citations
Cites
Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository
Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145396 · Cited by 999
Program merge conflict resolution via neural transformers
Svyatkovskiy, A., Fakhoury, S., Ghorbani, N., Mytkowicz, T., Dinella, E., Bird, C., Jang, J., Sundaresan, N., & Lahiri, S. K. (2022) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3540250.3549163 · Cited by 38
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.1007/s10664-017-9586-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2351676.2351694 · DOI
- 10.1145/2025113.2025141 · DOI
- 10.1109/32.6156 · DOI
- 10.1145/1240624.1240823 · DOI
- 10.1145/1453101.1453107 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2025113.2025139 · DOI
- 10.1109/HICSS.2006.101 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TSE.2005.73 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106347 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2018.2871083 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/tse.2022.3215289 · DOI
- 10.1145/2884781.2884826 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE.2015.55 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227180 · DOI
- 10.1080/01621459.1972.10481251 · DOI
- 10.1109/ISSRE5003.2020.00016 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE.2017.23 · DOI
- 10.1145/2597073.2597074 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606619 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2022.3143766 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10515-017-0227-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.032 · DOI
- 10.1145/3377024.3377047 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/smr.2435 · DOI
- 10.1145/567793.567795 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10664-018-9674-x · DOI
- 10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870173 · DOI
- 10.1145/2597073.2597113 · DOI
- 10.1145/2594458 · DOI
- 10.1145/2597073.2597107 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSR.2009.5069497 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2011.64 · DOI
- 10.1145/2441776.2441791 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2016.2584053 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/SBES.2010.26 · DOI
- 10.1145/2568225.2568315 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2021.3130098 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10664-019-09774-x · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub
Ogenrwot, D., & Businge, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software · doi:10.1145/3805760.3814923
“By making these conflict patterns observable at scale, AgenticFlict provides a foundation for studying how AI agents interact with collaborative development workflows.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Vale, G., Fernandes, E., Figueiredo, E., & Apel, S.
- Affiliations
- Saarland University (DE)
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
- Venue
- 2023 IEEE 23rd International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-10-02
- Pages
- 25-36
- OpenAlex
- W4389988511
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.30
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM) (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- EMI
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- merge conflicts, open source software, developer contributions, GitHub projects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review