CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Making AI Visible, Not Vanished: How AI Policies Reshape Developer Experience on GitHub

Open access
Chen, Yunqi, Zimmermann, Thomas, Trinkenreich, Bianca·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2608.03329arXiv 2608.03329
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative AI is rapidly reshaping Open Source Software (OSS) software development,prompting projects to introduce policies governing AI-assisted contributions. However, little is known about how these policies differ or whether they influence developer experience. We present the first large-scale empirical study of AI governance policies in OSS. Analyzing 29,624 GitHub repositories, we identify 385 projects that adopted AI policies and derive TRACE, a framework capturing five governance dimensions: Transparency, Responsibility, Attribution, Constraints, and Enforcement. We further classify policies into five governance families and estimate their effects using propensity-score matching and longitudinal difference-in-differences analysis. Our results show that AI governance primarily regulates rather than prohibits AI-assisted development. Policy adoption brings maintainer engagement, increased AI disclosure, richer review interactions, and improved code quality while AI-assisted contributions continue to grow. Governance design matters: policies emphasizing transparency and responsibility produced stronger community and quality outcomes than restrictive approaches alone. Our findings show how different AI governance strategies shape developer experience and provide evidence to help OSS communities design effective AI policies.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper presents a large-scale empirical study of AI governance policies in 29,624 GitHub repositories, identifying 385 projects that adopted AI policies and classifying them with the TRACE framework. Using propensity-score matching and staggered difference-in-differences, it finds that AI policies generally regulate rather than prohibit AI-assisted development, with transparency- and responsibility-oriented policies linked to stronger community and quality outcomes.

Key findings

  • AI policy adoption was rare: only 1.3% (385 of 29,624) of sampled projects adopted an explicit AI policy, with adoption accelerating in 2026 (49 in January, 67 in February, 86 in March, and 87 in April 2026).
  • Policies mostly made AI use visible rather than banning it: 66.0% required AI disclosure (T3–T4), 59.7% mandated human review/validation (R4), and 71.2% imposed some constraint above C1, while 67.5% did not address attribution (A1).
  • Average post-adoption effects included maintainer-responded PR share +6%, core developer count +12%, LOC per reviewer −14%, AI-assisted PR throughput +10%, large-PR share −2.1%, vulnerabilities −11%, code smells −16%, cognitive complexity −17%, active contributors +13%, AI-assisted PR share +6.8%, AI-disclosure PR count +11%, non-bot comments per PR +8%, bot first-response share −3%, review turns per PR +8%, reviewers per PR +4%, and maintainer response time −8%.
  • Governance design mattered: Transparency level 4 was associated with 23% higher AI-disclosure count and 41% higher AI-assisted throughput; Responsibility level 4 with 45% lower code smells and 47% lower cognitive complexity; Constraints reduced AI-assisted throughput by 16.5% to 33.0%; Enforcement reduced vulnerabilities but also active contributors. The largest policy family was Regulated & Controlled (121, 31.4%), followed by Permissive & Open (111, 28.8%), Quiet & Low-Requirement (68, 17.7%), Strict Prohibition (45, 11.7%), and Disclosed but Soft-Enforced (40, 10.4%).

Methods

  • The authors mined GitHub repositories via SEART-GHS, filtering for projects created before January 2024, at least 100 stars, over 100 commits from at least 10 authors, valid license, non-forked, open issues and PRs, and activity after January 2026; the final dataset comprised 29,624 projects and 10,192,203 PRs (median 93 per project) spanning January 2025 to May 2026.
  • AI policies were identified through GitHub code search, repository tree scans, text searches, and LLM classification (deepseek-v4-flash), then manually verified; 385 treatment repositories adopted policies between February 1, 2025, and April 30, 2026. Policies were coded with the TRACE framework (Transparency, Responsibility, Attribution, Constraints, Enforcement), with inter-rater reliability on a 20% sample (n = 75) showing Cohen’s Kappa of 0.79, 0.75, 0.82, 0.71, and 0.69 respectively (macro-mean κ = 0.75).
  • Causal effects were estimated using staggered difference-in-differences with propensity-score matching: 379 of 385 treated repositories were matched to 887 unique controls, with 19 SPACE-framework outcomes measured from GitHub PR timelines and weekly SonarQube scans; all 19 outcomes passed pre-trend tests from week −8 to −2, and robustness checks used 4-, 6-, 10-, and 12-week windows.

Limitations

  • The paper states internal-validity reliance on the parallel-trends assumption, supported by event-study tests and robustness windows; external validity is limited because AI policy adoption is recent and still accelerating, so whether early effects persist remains open; construct validity is limited because treatment is initial adoption of a human-facing AI policy, excluding agent-guidance files such as AGENTS.md, and policy evolution is not modeled; conclusion validity is limited by data sparsity at TRACE levels with fewer than 20 treated policies (T2: 4, A2: 7, E2: 8, A4: 14).
  • Evident from the text: the design is observational and quasi-experimental rather than randomized, so causal claims depend on matching and parallel-trend assumptions; AI-assisted PRs are identified through structural signals, co-author trailers, or self-disclosure, with the assumption that all subsequent PRs by the same author are AI-assisted; SonarQube scanned 92% of treated repositories and 87% of matched controls, and the main post-adoption window is 8 weeks.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.03329

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 15 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Attribution levels are concentrated at the weakest level.

    “We first looked at how levels were distributed in each dimension: © Attribution is concentrated at its weakest level, Responsibility is clustered around the validation requirement, and Transparency and Enforcement are bimodal distributions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    28.8% (111/385) of policies impose no constraints (C1).

    “28.8% of policies (111/385) impose no constraints (C1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    30.9% (119/385) of policies state that current submissions will be rejected or closed (E3).

    “At E3, 30.9% (119/385) state that current submissions will be rejected or closed, as Apache Arrow warns:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    3.6% (14/385) of policies demand documented rights or provenance (A4).

    “At A4, 3.6% (14/385) demand documented rights or provenance, as AxoSyslog requires, with the submitter”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The 385 policies spanned 135 out of the 1,024 possible TRACE level combinations.

    “The coding results revealed that the 385 policies spanned 135 out of the 1,024 possible level combinations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 43
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Transparency and Enforcement levels are bimodally distributed.

    “We first looked at how levels were distributed in each dimension: © Attribution is concentrated at its weakest level, Responsibility is clustered around the validation requirement, and Transparency and Enforcement are bimodal distributions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AI policy adoption was sparse through 2025 and accelerated in 2026, with only one policy adopted in February 2025 compared to 49 in January, 67 in February, 86 in March, and 87 in April 2026.

    “As shown in Fig. 3, the adoption was sparse through 2025 and accelerated in 2026.Only one policy was adopted in February 2025, compared to 49 in January, 67 in February, 86 in March, and 87 in April 2026.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The dataset comprised 29,624 GitHub projects containing 10,192,203 pull requests (median 93 per project), spanning January 2025 to May 2026.

    “Overall, the dataset comprised 29,624 projects, containing 10,192,203 PRs (median per project: 93), spanning from Jan 2025 to May 2026.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Regulated & Controlled policy family comprises 121 policies (31.4%) and is the largest family.

    “Regulated & Controlled (121, 31.4%).The largest family, defined by moderate restriction (C2 or C3), disclosure requirement (T≥3), and strong enforcement (E≥3, it mandates visibility and backs it with explicit consequences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Regulated & Controlled, AI-assisted share is 9.0% higher and throughput 11% higher (β = .10***).

    “AIassisted share (9.0%higher) and throughput (11% higher, β = .10* * * ) also increase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Transparency level 4, active contributors are 19% higher (β = .17***), core developers 17% higher (β = .16**), and maintainer-responded share 8.0% higher.

    “Participation metrics also strengthen, with active contributors 19% higher (β = .17* * * ), core developers 17% higher (β = .16* * ), and the maintainer-responded share 8.0% higher.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AI-assisted merged throughput rises 10% (β = .10***), though the absolute gain is modest (1.9 to 2.1).

    “AIassisted merged throughput rises 10% (β = .10* * * ), though the absolute gain is modest (1.9 to 2.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Attribution level 3, active contributors are 8% lower (β = -.09***), code smells 46% lower, cognitive complexity 53% lower, ncloc 44% lower, yet vulnerabilities 22% higher (β = .20**).

    “At this level, contributor counts are lower (active contributors -8%, β = -.09* * * ) and several quality metrics are better (code smells -46%, cognitive complexity -53%, ncloc -44%), yet vulnerabilities are 22% higher (β = .20* * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Permissive & Open, AI-assisted share is 13% higher and AI-assisted throughput 40% higher (β = .34***).

    “AI-assisted share is 13% higher and AI-assisted throughput 40% higher (β = .34* * * )”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AI policy adoption is recent and still accelerating (Fig. 3).

    “AI policy adoption is recent and still accelerating (Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher enforcement is associated with fewer active contributors (9.5% at level 4, β = -.10**) and with a 9.0% higher maintainer-responded share at level 4.

    “Higher enforcement is also associated with fewer active contributors (9.5% at level 4, β = -.10 * * ) and with a 9.0% higher maintainer-responded share at level 4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Permissive & Open, disclosure count is 18% higher (β = .17***), active contributors 15% higher (β = .14***), and core developers 16% higher (β = .15***).

    “while disclosure count is 18% higher (β = .17* * * ), active contributors 15% higher (β = .14* * * ), and core developers 16% higher (β = .15* * * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Regulated & Controlled, disclosure share is 7.0% higher and reviewers 7.3% higher (β = .07*), while vulnerabilities are 28% lower (β = -.33***).

    “Disclosure share is 7.0% higher and reviewers 7.3% higher (β = .07* ), while vulnerabilities are 28% lower (β = -.33 * * * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Quiet & Low-Requirement, AI-assisted merged throughput is 12% lower and AI-assisted share 3.0% lower, with disclosure count also 3.0% lower (β = -.03***).

    “AI-assisted merged throughput is 12% lower and AI-assisted share 3.0% lower, with disclosure count also 3.0% lower (β = -.03* * * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Transparency level 4, AI-assisted share is 15% higher and AI-assisted throughput 41% higher (β = .34***).

    “while AI-assisted share is 15% higher and AI-assisted throughput 41% higher (β = .34* * * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Responsibility level 4, throughput is 28% higher (β = .25**), disclosure count 7% higher (β = .07***), reviewers per PR 5% more (β = .05***), and bot first-response share 9.0% higher.

    “level 4 is associated with 28% higher throughput (β = .25* * ), 7% higher disclosure count (β = .07* * * ), 5% more reviewers per PR (β = .05* * * ) , and 9.0% higher bot first-response share.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Disclosed but Soft-Enforced, active contributors are 34% higher (β = .30***) and disclosure count 11% higher (β = .10**).

    “Active contributors are 34% higher (β = .30* * * ) and disclosure count 11% higher (β = .10* * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Transparency level 3, disclosure count is 13% higher (β = .12***) and active contributors 17% higher (β = .15***).

    “Level 3 show the same direction, with disclosure count 13% higher (β = .12* * * ) and active contributors 17% higher (β = .15* * * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Transparency level 4, AI-disclosure count is 23% higher (β = .21***) and disclosure share 4.0% higher.

    “At level 4, AI-disclosure count is 23% higher (β = .21* * * ) and disclosure share 4.0% higher”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under Strict Prohibition, code smells are 34% lower, ncloc 36% lower, and maintainer-responded share 9.0% higher.

    “The strongest effects appear in quality and engagement as code smells are 34% lower, ncloc 36% lower, and the maintainer-responded share 9.0% higher.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Responsibility level 4, code smells decline 45% (β = -.61**), cognitive complexity 47% (β = -.64*), and ncloc 37% (β = -.47**).

    “code smells decline 45% (β = -.61 * * ), cognitive complexity 47% (β = -.64 * ), and ncloc 37% (β = -.47 * * ).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At Enforcement levels 3 and 4, vulnerabilities are 8.6% (β = -.09*) and 14.8% lower (β = -.16*), respectively.

    “At levels 3 and 4, vulnerabilities are 8.6% (β = -.09* ) and 14.8% lower (β = -.16 * ), respectively”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Active contributors increase 13% (β = .12***), meaning 2 additional contributors per week.

    “Active contributors increase 13% (β = .12* * * ), meaning 2 additional contributors per week.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    SonarQube successfully scanned 92% (347 of 379) treated repositories and 87% (768 of 887) matched controls.

    “SonarQube successfully scanned 92% (347 of 379) treated repositories and 87% (768 of 887) of the matched controls, as the remaining failed to scan.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The rule-based method aligned directly with governance logic and created more balanced groups than the clustering approach.

    “In contrast, the rule-based method aligned directly with governance logic and created more balanced groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-rater reliability between one author and the LLM on a random 20% sample (n=75) of the 385-policy coding frame was substantial across the five TRACE dimensions (Transparency κ=0.79, Responsibility κ=0.75, Attribution κ=0.82, Constraints κ=0.71, Enforcement κ=0.69; macro-mean κ=0.75).

    “Inter-rater reliability between one author and the LLM was assessed on a random 20% sample (n = 75) of the 385policy coding frame, reported by Cohen's Kappa value [32].Agreement was substantial across five TRACE dimensions: Transparency κ = 0.79, Responsibility κ = 0.75, Attribution κ = 0.82, Constraints κ = 0.71, and Enforcement κ = 0.69 (macro-mean κ = 0.75).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Difference-in-differences is a causal-inference method well-established in econometrics and increasingly applied in software engineering.

    “we used difference-in-differences (DiD), a causal-inference method well-established in econometrics [33], [34] and increasingly being applied in software engineering [7], [20], [24], [35], [36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [33]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [34]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Maintainers increasingly report being overwhelmed by a surge of low-quality AI-generated submissions, often described as 'AI slop'.

    “Maintainers increasingly report overwhelmed by a surge of low-quality AI-generated submissions, often described in community discourse as”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [21]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [22]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Transparency amplifies disclosure, AI-assisted activity, and community participation.

    “Transparency amplifies disclosure, AI-assisted activity, and community participation: Higher Transparency levels correspond to larger gains in disclosure and AI-assisted activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    For adopters, formal rules legitimize AI use rather than suppress it as AI-assisted activity, disclosure, and contributor counts all rise together.

    “Yet for adopters, formal rules legitimize AI use rather than suppress it as AI-assisted activity, disclosure, and contributor counts all rise together.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Enforcement reduces vulnerabilities and accelerates maintainer response, at the cost of fewer active contributors.

    “Enforcement reduces vulnerabilities and accelerates maintainer response, at the cost of fewer active contributors.:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Regulated & Controlled policies combine disclosure with stronger review and lower vulnerabilities.

    “Regulated & Controlled policies combine disclosure with stronger review and lower vulnerabilities:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Even under Strict Prohibition, AI use persists while quality improves most.

    “Even under Strict Prohibition, AI use persists while quality improves most.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Cells with fewer than 20 treated policies are left unmarked as unreported, leaving the impact of underrepresented configurations unknown.

    “We leave these cells unmarked as unreported, leaving the impact of underrepresented configurations unknown.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Responsibility strengthens both review engagement and code quality at level 4.

    “Responsibility strengthens both review engagement and code quality at level 4:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Policies function as signals that reduce uncertainty and encourage participation.

    “Policies function as signals that reduce uncertainty and encourage participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Strict Prohibition policies reduce AI throughput but do not eliminate observed AI-assisted activity.

    “Strict Prohibition policies reduce AI throughput but do not eliminate observed AI-assisted activity:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This distinctness lets TRACE serve as a reusable tool for future OSS AI governance research.

    “This distinctness lets TRACE serve as a reusable tool for future OSS AI governance research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Robustness checks covering 4, 6, 10, and 12-week windows yielded directionally consistent results, suggesting reported short-term effects are not artifacts of window choice.

    “Robustness checks covering 4, 6, 10, and 12-week windows yielded directionally consistent results, suggesting reported short-term effects are not artifacts of window choice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Traditionally, OSS communities govern development through Codes of Conduct, contribution guidelines, and pull request workflows.

    “Traditionally, OSS communities govern development through Codes of Conduct [24], contribution guidelines [25], and pull request workflows [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [24]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [25]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [5]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Difference-in-differences evaluates the effect of an intervention from observational data by comparing a treatment group with a control group.

    “DiD evaluates the effect of an intervention from observational data by comparing a treatment group (repositories that adopted an AI policy) with a control group (matched repositories that did not) [37].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Attribution shows mixed signals, with quality gains offset by higher vulnerabilities.

    “© Attribution show mixed signals, with quality gains offset by higher vulnerabilities:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    DID validity relies on the parallel-trend assumption, which was supported by event-study regressions where all 19 outcomes passed the pre-trend test (weeks -8 to -2).

    “DID validity relies on the parallel-trend assumption, which we supported by event-study regressions where all 19 outcomes passed the pre-trend test (weeks -8 to -2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Disclosed but Soft-Enforced policies produce the largest active-contributor gains, but also higher vulnerabilities.

    “Disclosed but Soft-Enforced policies produce the largest active-contributor gains, but also higher vulnerabilities:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Agent-guidance configurations (AGENTS.md) were excluded to avoid unmodeled, entangled effects.

    “we excluded agent-guidance configurations (AGENTS.md) to avoid unmodeled, entangled effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Each TRACE dimension captures a distinct mechanism (Transparency drives disclosure, Responsibility activates review quality, Constraints modulates AI volume, Enforcement shapes security outcomes).

    “Each TRACE dimension captures a distinct mechanism ( Transparency drives disclosure, Responsibility activates review quality, Constraints modulates AI volume, Enforcement shapes security outcomes).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All candidate AI policies were manually verified.

    “We manually verified all candidate policies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In academia, journals and conferences have adopted AI disclosure rules, though detected AI use exceeds disclosed use by roughly 40 to 1.

    “Similar shifts have occurred in academia, where journals and conferences have adopted AI disclosure rules, though detected AI use there exceeds disclosed use by roughly 40 to 1 [23].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Post-adoption, contributions become more modular and reviews shift into a more dialogic loop.

    “Post-adoption, contributions become more modular and reviews shift into a more dialogic loop.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
49 of 49

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Developers continue to use AI tools after initial adoption.

    “Assuming developers continue to use AI tools after initial adoption, we labeled all subsequent PRs by the same author as AI-assisted.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Without the policy, treated and control repositories would have followed similar outcome trends over time (parallel trends).

    “The validity for DiD relies on the parallel trends assumption, namely that, without the policy, treated and control repositories would have followed similar outcome trends over time.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    DID validity relies on the parallel-trend assumption.

    “DID validity relies on the parallel-trend assumption, which we supported by event-study regressions where all 19 outcomes passed the pre-trend test (weeks -8 to -2).”
3 of 3

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. P. C. D. Johnson, "Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth's R 2 to random slopes models," Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 944-946, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chen, Y., Zimmermann, T., & Trinkenreich, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2608.03329
arXiv
2608.03329
OpenAlex
W7172533516
Semantic Scholar
0ff78eba0ce9030bb796a8d4010569da143cdc48
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • 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
AI governance policy, generative AI, open source software, developer experience, GitHub repositories, AI-assisted development, transparency, attribution, code review, code quality, community participation, policy enforcement

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-02.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-02.

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