Edit, But Verify: An Empirical Audit of Instructed Code-Editing Benchmarks
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866908941193052160 |
|---|---|
| author | Ebrahimi, Amir M. Rajbahadur, Gopi Krishnan |
| author_facet | Ebrahimi, Amir M. Rajbahadur, Gopi Krishnan |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_05100 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Edit, But Verify: An Empirical Audit of Instructed Code-Editing Benchmarks Ebrahimi, Amir M. Rajbahadur, Gopi Krishnan Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence 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. |
| title | Edit, But Verify: An Empirical Audit of Instructed Code-Editing Benchmarks |
| topic | Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05100 |