CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 86Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot

Open access
Song, Fangchen, Agarwal, Ashish, Wen, Wen·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.02091arXiv 2410.02091
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) facilitates content production and enhances ideation, with potentially important implications for developer productivity and participation in software development. To explore its impact on collaborative open-source software (OSS) development, we investigate the role of GitHub Copilot, a generative AI pair programmer, in OSS development where multiple distributed developers voluntarily collaborate. Using GitHub's proprietary Copilot usage data, combined with public OSS project data obtained from GitHub, we find that Copilot use increases project-level code contributions by 5.9%. This gain is accompanied by a 3.4% increase in developer coding participation and a 2.1% increase in individual code contributions. However, Copilot use is also associated with an 8% increase in coordination time and more code discussions. This reveals an important tradeoff: While AI expands who can contribute and how much they contribute, it slows coordination in collective development efforts. Despite this tension, the overall effect remains positive, resulting in a net increase in the timely merge of code contributions at the project level. Interestingly, we also find heterogeneous effects across developer roles. Peripheral developers exhibit relatively smaller increases in project-level code contributions and larger increases in coordination time than core developers. Together, our findings highlight the dual effects of AI pair programmers on code contributions and coordination in OSS development and provide implications for how generative AI may reshape the structure of OSS communities over time.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.02091

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Bakos JY, Brynjolfsson E (1993) Information technology, incentives, and the optimal number of suppliers. Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2):37-53.
  2. Barke S, James MB, Polikarpova N (2023) Grounded copilot: How programmers interact with codegenerating models. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 7(OOPSLA1):85-111.
  3. Brynjolfsson E, Li D, Raymond L (2025) Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics :qjae044.
  4. Burtch G, Lee D, Chen Z (2024) The consequences of generative AI for online knowledge communities. Scientific Reports 14(1):10413.
  5. Crowston K, Wei K, Li Q, Howison J (2006) Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications. Proceedings of the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS'06) (IEEE), 118a-118a.
  6. Dagenais B, Robillard MP (2010) Creating and evolving developer documentation: understanding the decisions of open source contributors. Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering , 127-136.
  7. Dell'Acqua F, Kogut B, Perkowski P (2023) Super mario meets ai: Experimental effects of automation and skills on team performance and coordination. Review of Economics and Statistics :1-47.
  8. El Mezouar M, Zhang F, Zou Y (2019) An empirical study on the teams structures in social coding using GitHub projects. Empirical Software Engineering 24(6):3790-3823.
  9. Eseryel UY, Wei K, Crowston K (2020) Decision-making processes in community-based free/libre open source software-development teams with internal governance: An extension to decision-making theory. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 46(1):20.
  10. Espinosa JA, Slaughter SA, Kraut RE, Herbsleb JD (2007) Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization science 18(4):613-630.
  11. Feri F, Irlenbusch B, Sutter M (2010) Efficiency gains from team-based coordination-large-scale experimental evidence. American Economic Review 100(4):1892-1912.
  12. Hann I-H, Roberts JA, Slaughter SA (2013) All are not equal: An examination of the economic returns to different forms of participation in open source software communities. Information Systems Research 24(3):520-538.
  13. Im GP, Ahuja M (2023) The Interdependence of Coordination and Cooperation in Information Technology Outsourcing. Information Systems Research 34(4):1791-1806.
  14. Janardhanan NS, Lewis K, Reger RK, Stevens CK (2020) Getting to know you: motivating crossunderstanding for improved team and individual performance. Organization Science 31(1):103-118.
  15. Kononenko O, Rose T, Baysal O, Godfrey M, Theisen D, De Water B (2018) Studying pull request merges: A case study of shopify's active merchant. Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: software engineering in practice , 124-133.
  16. Koushik MV, Mookerjee VS (1995) Modeling coordination in software construction: An analytical approach. Information Systems Research 6(3):220-254.
  17. Krishnamurthy R, Jacob V, Radhakrishnan S, Dogan K (2016) Peripheral developer participation in open source projects: an empirical analysis. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 6(4):1-31.
  18. Lerner J, Tirole J (2002) Some simple economics of open source. The journal of industrial economics 50(2):197-234.
  19. Li N, Zhou H, Mikel-Hong K (2024) Generative AI Enhances Team Performance and Reduces Need for Traditional Teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17924 . · arXiv
  20. Lindberg A, Schecter A, Berente N, Hennel P, Lyytinen K (2024) THE ENTRAINMENT OF TASK ALLOCATION AND RELEASE CYCLES IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. MIS Quarterly 48(1).
  21. Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 26(1):87-119.
  22. Mattarelli E, Bertolotti F, Prencipe A, Gupta A (2022) The effect of role-based product representations on individual and team coordination practices: A field study of a globally distributed new product development team. Organization Science 33(4):1423-1451.
  23. Mawdsley JK, Meyer-Doyle P, Chatain O (2022) Client-related factors and collaboration between human assets. Organization Science 33(2):518-540.
  24. Mockus A, Fielding RT, Herbsleb JD (2002) Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 11(3):309-346.
  25. Noy S, Zhang W (2023) Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Available at SSRN 4375283 .
  26. Oh W, Jeon S (2007) Membership herding and network stability in the open source community: The Ising perspective. Management science 53(7):1086-1101.
  27. Oliveira N, Lumineau F (2017) How coordination trajectories influence the performance of interorganizational project networks. Organization Science 28(6):1029-1060.
  28. Peng S, Kalliamvakou E, Cihon P, Demirer M (2023) The impact of ai on developer productivity: Evidence from github copilot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06590 . · arXiv
  29. Piñeiro-Martín A, Santos-Criado F-J, García-Mateo C, Docío-Fernández L, López-Pérez MdC (2025) Context Is King: Large Language Models' Interpretability in Divergent Knowledge Scenarios. Applied Sciences 15(3):1192.
  30. Reagans R, Miron-Spektor E, Argote L (2016) Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance. Organization Science 27(5):1108-1124.
  31. Roels G, Corbett CJ (2024) Too many meetings? Scheduling rules for team coordination. Management Science 70(12):8647-8667.
  32. Shaer O, Cooper A, Mokryn O, Kun AL, Ben Shoshan H (2024) AI-Augmented Brainwriting: Investigating the use of LLMs in group ideation. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1-17.
  33. Simcoe T (2012) Standard setting committees: Consensus governance for shared technology platforms. American Economic Review 102(1):305-336.
  34. Srikanth K, Puranam P (2014) The firm as a coordination system: Evidence from software services offshoring. Organization Science 25(4):1253-1271.
  35. Stewart KJ, Ammeter AP, Maruping LM (2006) Impacts of license choice and organizational sponsorship on user interest and development activity in open source software projects. Information Systems Research 17(2):126-144.
  36. Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J (2014) Let's talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering , 144-154.
  37. Vasilescu B, Yu Y, Wang H, Devanbu P, Filkov V (2015) Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. Proceedings of the 2015 10th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering , 805-816.
  38. Weber RA (2006) Managing growth to achieve efficient coordination in large groups. American Economic Review 96(1):114-126.
  39. Yeverechyahu, D., Mayya, R., & Oestreicher-Singer, G. (2024). The impact of large language models on open-source innovation: Evidence from github copilot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08379. · arXiv
  40. Yu Y, Wang H, Filkov V, Devanbu P, Vasilescu B (2015) Wait for it: Determinants of pull request evaluation latency on github. 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th working conference on mining software repositories (IEEE), 367-371.
  41. Zhang X, Zhu F (2011) Group size and incentives to contribute: A natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. American Economic Review 101(4):1601-1615.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Song, F., Agarwal, A., & Wen, W.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Wen, Wen
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.02091
arXiv
2410.02091
OpenAlex
W4400488941
Cited by
30
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 6
FWCI
200.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
generative AI, GitHub Copilot, open source software development, collaborative software development, code contribution, developer engagement, developer roles, core developers, open source communities, developer productivity

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