Geyang (Albert) Xu

Existing code reveals past implementation decisions but rarely explains the reasoning behind them. When coding agents implement new features or modify existing functionality, past decisions may conflict with new task instructions. This raises a fundamental question for agentic software evolution: when multiple implementations satisfy the same functional requirements, how do coding agents decide whether to follow existing code or new task instructions? We investigate this question through bidirectional, controlled experiments in purpose-built repositories, followed by validation in real-world open-source repositories. Our approach isolates three competing sources of guidance: (1) agents’ default preferences, (2) repository precedents, and (3) explicit task instructions. We conduct 5,625 trials across four coding agents and six implementation pairs, with validation in four open-source repositories spanning three programming languages. We find that agents share the same default implementation choices, yet overwhelmingly follow repository precedent when it conflicts with those defaults (359/360 trials). Crucially, not all precedents carry equal influence: three supporting local files yield 96% adoption, compared with only 4% for sibling-resource files, and changing file placement alone can shift adoption from 0% to 100% at a fixed example count. When new task intent conflicts with existing code, written priority rules achieve substantially higher success than code examples alone. These findings motivate design-decision traceability that preserves not only implementation choices but also the rationale and priorities that should guide future changes.

Structured data-quality issues—such as missing values correlated with demographics, culturally biased labels, or systemic selection biases—routinely degrade the reliability of machine-learning pipelines. Regulators now increasingly demand evidence that high-stakes systems can withstand these realistic, interdependent errors, yet current robustness evaluations typically use random or overly simplistic corruptions, leaving worst-case scenarios unexplored. We introduce SAVAGE, a causally inspired framework that (i) formally models realistic data-quality issues through dependency graphs and flexible corruption templates, and (ii) systematically discovers corruption patterns that maximally degrade a target performance metric. SAVAGE employs a bi-level optimization approach to efficiently identify vulnerable data subpopulations and fine-tune corruption severity, treating the full ML pipeline, including preprocessing and potentially non-differentiable models, as a black box. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets and ML tasks (data cleaning, fairness-aware learning, uncertainty quantification) demonstrate that even a small fraction (around 5%) of structured corruptions identified by SAVAGE severely impacts model performance, far exceeding random or manually crafted errors, and invalidating core assumptions of existing techniques.