Gopi Krishnan Rajbahadur
Publications
To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editing
Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.
Don't Trust the Label: License Laundering in AI Supply Chains
AI artifacts move through a multi-platform supply chain, spanning datasets and models on Hugging Face and applications on GitHub. While each artifact carries a license whose obligations should propagate through redistribution, no study has yet measured whether those obligations survive the chain or are stripped and replaced as artifacts move downstream. We trace 232,270 dataset$\rightarrow$model$\rightarrow$application chains and quantify two forms of license laundering: when artifacts with no declared license acquire definitive labels downstream, and when one declared license category replaces another during redistribution. We find that 62.3% of chains pass through at least one artifact with no declared license (concentrated in a small set of foundational datasets), and that every obligation-bearing license category falls below 7% end-to-end survival while the Permissive category reaches 95.1%. Based on these findings, we provide actionable recommendations for practitioners, model publishers, rights holders, and platform owners.
Edit, But Verify: An Empirical Audit of Instructed Code-Editing Benchmarks
Instructed code editing, where an LLM modifies existing code based on a natural language instruction, accounts for roughly 19% of real-world coding assistant interactions. Yet very few benchmarks directly evaluate this capability. From a survey of over 150 code-related benchmarks, we find that only two, CanItEdit and EDIT-Bench, target instructed code editing with human-authored instructions and test-based evaluation. We audit both by comparing their programming languages, edit intents, and application domains against distributions observed in the wild (Copilot Arena, AIDev, GitHub Octoverse), and by measuring test counts, statement coverage, and test scope across all 213 problems. Both benchmarks concentrate over 90\% of evaluation on Python while TypeScript, GitHub's most-used language, is absent. Backend and frontend development, which together constitute 46% of real-world editing activity, are largely missing, and documentation, testing, and maintenance edits (31.4% of human PRs) have zero representation. Both benchmarks have modest test counts (CanItEdit median 13, EDIT-Bench median 4), though CanItEdit compensates with near-complete whole-file coverage and fail-before/pass-after validation. 59\% of EDIT-Bench's low-coverage suites would not detect modifications outside the edit region. EDIT-Bench has 15 problems that are not solved by any of 40 LLMs and 11 of these problems trace failures to poor benchmark artifacts rather than model limitations. Further, 29% of EDIT-Bench problems and 6% of CanItEdit problems share a codebase with at least one other problem within the benchmark. In summary, these benchmarks measure a narrower construct than deployment decisions require. We therefore propose six empirically grounded desiderata and release all audit artifacts so the community can build instructed code-editing benchmarks whose scores reliably reflect real-world editing capability.
Permissive-Washing in the Open AI Supply Chain: A Large-Scale Audit of License Integrity
Permissive licenses like MIT, Apache-2.0, and BSD-3-Clause dominate open-source AI, signaling that artifacts like models, datasets, and code can be freely used, modified, and redistributed. However, these licenses carry mandatory requirements: include the full license text, provide a copyright notice, and preserve upstream attribution, that remain unverified at scale. Failure to meet these conditions can place reuse outside the scope of the license, effectively leaving AI artifacts under default copyright for those uses and exposing downstream users to litigation. We call this phenomenon ``permissive washing'': labeling AI artifacts as free to use, while omitting the legal documentation required to make that label actionable. To assess how widespread permissive washing is in the AI supply chain, we empirically audit 124,278 dataset $\rightarrow$ model $\rightarrow$ application supply chains, spanning 3,338 datasets, 6,664 models, and 28,516 applications across Hugging Face and GitHub. We find that an astonishing 96.5\% of datasets and 95.8\% of models lack the required license text, only 2.3\% of datasets and 3.2\% of models satisfy both license text and copyright requirements, and even when upstream artifacts provide complete licensing evidence, attribution rarely propagates downstream: only 27.59\% of models preserve compliant dataset notices and only 5.75\% of applications preserve compliant model notices (with just 6.38\% preserving any linked upstream notice). Practitioners cannot assume permissive labels confer the rights they claim: license files and notices, not metadata, are the source of legal truth. To support future research, we release our full audit dataset and reproducible pipeline.