A. M. Ebrahimi
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.
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.