arxiv-2503-22424 SRC-0314 · paper

Issue Localization via LLM-Driven Iterative Code Graph Searching

Created: 2025-03-28 · Ingested: 2026-09-19

Issue solving aims to generate patches to fix re-ported issues in real-world code repositories according to issue descriptions. Issue localization forms the basis for accurate issue solving. Recently, large language model (LLM) based issue localization methods have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance. However, these methods either search from files mentioned in issue descriptions or in the whole repository and struggle to balance the breadth and depth of the search space to converge on the target efficiently. Moreover, they allow LLM to explore whole repositories freely, making it challe

In brief

Constraining an LLM's repository search with call graphs plus a pruner beats letting it roam the repo freely, and most of the gain shows up at function granularity rather than file granularity. CoSIL first expands file-level candidates using a dynamically built module call graph, then iteratively walks a function call graph with retrieval tools, rejecting irrelevant nodes via a pruner agent and reformatting final answers with a short-context reflection step. No training or pre-indexing.

Tested on SWE-bench Lite (300 instances) and Verified (500) with Qwen2.5-Coder-7B/14B/32B against Agentless-FL, OrcaLoca, and LocAgent. With the 32B model, function-level Top-1 is 0.433 on Lite and 0.446 on Verified, versus 0.247 and 0.326 for Agentless-FL and 0.103/0.250 for LocAgent. File-level Top-1 is sometimes worse than baselines (LocAgent 0.647 vs CoSIL 0.613 on Lite). Empty recommendation rate falls to 0.00%-1.00% against LocAgent's 12.80%-22.33%. Feeding locations into Agentless raises resolution rate by 2.04%-30.5%.

Ablations remove each component: iterative search costs the most (Top-1 0.433 to 0.320), module call graph ~10%, reflective alignment 6-10%, pruning ~3%. Iteration sweep shows performance dips then peaks at 10 iterations. Generalization to DeepSeek-v3 and GPT-4o is measured on 50-instance subsets only.

Telling: with 40 patch samples CoSIL@40 resolves 31.3% versus Agentless-1.5's 32.0% despite 15% higher function Top-5, so better localization does not reliably convert into fixes. Python-only, SWE-bench-only.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-17, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsWithout training or a prebuilt index, searching a module call graph built on the fly for breadth at file level and then expanding it into a function call graph for depth reached about 43-44% function-level Top-1 localization on SWE-bench Lite and Verified with open 32B and 72B models, beating prior LLM localizers, and the better locations raised an issue-solving pipeline's resolve rate by roughly 3 to 30 points depending on model.