Asymmetric Repository Lineage Modeling and Verifier-Guided Coordination in Concurrent AI Coding Agents — AI benchmark

Arjun Subramanian, George Xu, Nithilan Karthik/Asymmetric Repository Lineage Modeling and Verifier-Guided Coordination in Concurrent AI Coding AgentsUnknown

Concurrent AI coding agents create a coordination problem in which cheap signals may prioritize work, but only an executable checker can establish the property being claimed. We study this separation through a property-scoped verification contract and MERGEGYM, a three-track benchmark for open-time scope forecasting, replay- conditioned conflict resolution, and scheduling. On a stratified 715-pair lineage set (167 textual conflicts), 79 conflicts (47.3%) occur despite disjoint authored file sets. This is an operationally important proxy mismatch expected from three-way merge: authored PR diffs are measured against PR-specific bases, whereas the checker compares both heads to their common merge base. A standalone lineage-union rule reaches held-out AUROC 0.877; a 12-feature logistic model reaches 0.882 [0.845, 0.917] with PR-AUC 0.661, and an untuned random forest on the same decision-time features reaches 0.902 [0.875, 0.928] with PR-AUC 0.701. At a 33.3% held-out replay budget, the logistic and random-forest models recover 81.2% and 82.9% of conflicts, respectively. Patch reconstruction succeeds for 48/79 zero- overlap conflicts and all 48 become clean; the other 31 cases are inconclusive, so this check validates the expected three-way-merge explanation rather than claiming a new Git mechanism. In T1, a zero-shot LLM reaches AUC 0.704 and LLM-plus- metadata fusion 0.740. In T3, a decision-time gate de-overlaps a median 91.7% of labeled scope collisions at 65.0% makespan inflation under frozen-label replay. Because local git merge-tree replay is already cheap in our logs (median 0.02 s), we do not claim that lineage triage saves this checker alone: when exact replay is cheap, verify everything. All empirical guarantees in this paper remain limited to textual mergeability or the explicitly stated frozen-label scheduling target.

benchmark

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed10h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

not enough history

Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at

inactivepushed

not enough history

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems

0 · benchmark

Commitment To Cooperation With Self-Negotiated Contracts

0 · benchmark

Exploring Structures in Physics Problems: Can AI Agents Discover Statistical Mechanical Mappings?

0 · benchmark

Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation

0 · benchmark

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler10h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing