PreprintCited by 1Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesTopic Modeling

LocAgent: Graph-Guided LLM Agents for Code Localization

Open access
Chen, Zhaoling, Tang, Xiangru, Deng, Gangda, Wu, Fang, Wu, Jialong, Jiang, Zhiwei, Prasanna, Viktor, Cohan, Arman +1 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Code localization--identifying precisely where in a codebase changes need to be made--is a fundamental yet challenging task in software maintenance. Existing approaches struggle to efficiently navigate complex codebases when identifying relevant code sections. The challenge lies in bridging natural language problem descriptions with the appropriate code elements, often requiring reasoning across hierarchical structures and multiple dependencies. We introduce LocAgent, a framework that addresses code localization through graph-based representation. By parsing codebases into directed heterogeneous graphs, LocAgent creates a lightweight representation that captures code structures (files, classes, functions) and their dependencies (imports, invocations, inheritance), enabling LLM agents to effectively search and locate relevant entities through powerful multi-hop reasoning. Experimental results on real-world benchmarks demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances accuracy in code localization. Notably, our method with the fine-tuned Qwen-2.5-Coder-Instruct-32B model achieves comparable results to SOTA proprietary models at greatly reduced cost (approximately 86% reduction), reaching up to 92.7% accuracy on file-level localization while improving downstream GitHub issue resolution success rates by 12% for multiple attempts (Pass@10). Our code is available at https://github.com/gersteinlab/LocAgent.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.09089

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent graph-based frameworks use graphs as static dependency representations for retrieval or localization, but these graphs do not evolve during search.

    “Recent graph-based frameworks such as LocAgent [29] and CodexGraph [30] use graphs as static dependency representations for retrieval or localization, but these graphs do not evolve during search.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Marcel Böhme, Ezekiel O Soremekun, Sudipta Chattopadhyay, Emamurho Ugherughe, and Andreas Zeller. 2017. Where is the bug and how is it fixed? an experiment with practitioners. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering , pages 117-128.
  2. Zehui Chen, Weihua Du, Wenwei Zhang, Kuikun Liu, Jiangning Liu, Miao Zheng, Jingming Zhuo, Songyang Zhang, Dahua Lin, Kai Chen, et al. 2024. T-eval: Evaluating the tool utilization capability of large language models step by step. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 9510-9529.
  3. John Ellson, Emden Gansner, Lefteris Koutsofios, Stephen C North, and Gordon Woodhull. 2002. Graphviz-open source graph drawing tools. In Graph Drawing: 9th International Symposium, GD 2001 Vienna, Austria, September 23-26, 2001 Revised Papers 9 , pages 483-484. Springer.
  4. Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. 2023. Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04560 . · arXiv
  5. Jiafeng Guo, Yixing Fan, Qingyao Ai, and W Bruce Croft. 2016. A deep relevance matching model for ad-hoc retrieval. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management , pages 55-64.
  6. Jiafeng Guo, Yixing Fan, Liang Pang, Liu Yang, Qingyao Ai, Hamed Zamani, Chen Wu, W Bruce Croft, and Xueqi Cheng. 2020. A deep look into neural ranking models for information retrieval. Information Processing & Management , 57(6):102067.
  7. Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning , pages 3929-3938. PMLR.
  8. Michael Günther, Louis Milliken, Jonathan Geuter, Georgios Mastrapas, Bo Wang, and Han Xiao. 2023. Jina embeddings: A novel set of highperformance sentence embedding models. Preprint , arXiv:2307.11224. · arXiv
  9. Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685 . · arXiv
  10. Binyuan Hui, Jian Yang, Zeyu Cui, Jiaxi Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Lei Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Jiajun Zhang, Bowen Yu, Keming Lu, Kai Dang, Yang Fan, Yichang Zhang, An Yang, Rui Men, Fei Huang, Bo Zheng, Yibo Miao, Shanghaoran Quan, Yunlong Feng, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. 2024. Qwen2.5-coder technical report. Preprint , arXiv:2409.12186. · arXiv
  11. Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770 . · arXiv
  12. Sungmin Kang, Gabin An, and Shin Yoo. 2023. A preliminary evaluation of llm-based fault localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05487 . · arXiv
  13. Sungmin Kang, Gabin An, and Shin Yoo. 2024. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of llm-based explainable fault localization. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , 1(FSE):1424-1446.
  14. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:9459-9474.
  15. Xiangyan Liu, Bo Lan, Zhiyuan Hu, Yang Liu, Zhicheng Zhang, Fei Wang, Michael Shieh, and Wenmeng Zhou. 2024. Codexgraph: Bridging large language models and code repositories via code graph databases. Preprint , arXiv:2408.03910. · arXiv
  16. Qingsong Lv, Ming Ding, Qiang Liu, Yuxiang Chen, Wenzheng Feng, Siming He, Chang Zhou, Jianguo Jiang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2021. Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 1150-1160.
  17. Yingwei Ma, Qingping Yang, Rongyu Cao, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2024. How to understand whole software repository? arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv-2406.
  18. Niels Mündler, Mark Müller, Jingxuan He, and Martin Vechev. 2024. Swt-bench: Testing and validating real-world bug-fixes with code agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:8185781887.
  19. Siru Ouyang, Wenhao Yu, Kaixin Ma, Zilin Xiao, Zhihan Zhang, Mengzhao Jia, Jiawei Han, Hongming Zhang, and Dong Yu. 2025. Repograph: Enhancing AI software engineering with repository-level code graph. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations .
  20. Yihao Qin, Shangwen Wang, Yiling Lou, Jinhao Dong, Kaixin Wang, Xiaoling Li, and Xiaoguang Mao. 2024. Agentfl: Scaling llm-based fault localization to project-level context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16362 . · arXiv
  21. Chen Qu, Liu Yang, Cen Chen, Minghui Qiu, W Bruce Croft, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Open-retrieval conversational question answering. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval , pages 539-548.
  22. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval , 3(4):333-389.
  23. Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at trec-3. In Text Retrieval Conference .
  24. Tarun Suresh, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Yifei Xu, Zach Nussbaum, Andriy Mulyar, Brandon Duderstadt, and Heng Ji. 2024. Cornstack: High-quality contrastive data for better code ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01007 . · arXiv
  25. David A. Tomassi, Naji Dmeiri, Yichen Wang, Antara Bhowmick, Yen-Chuan Liu, Premkumar Devanbu, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Cindy Rubio-González. 2019. Bugswarm: Mining and continuously growing a dataset of reproducible failures and fixes. Preprint , arXiv:1903.06725. · arXiv
  26. Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022. Text embeddings by weaklysupervised contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533 . · arXiv
  27. Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F. Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, Hoang H. Tran, Fuqiang Li, Ren Ma, Mingzhang Zheng, Bill Qian, Yanjun Shao, Niklas Muennighoff, Yizhe Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Junyang Lin, Robert Brennan, Hao Peng, Heng Ji, and Graham Neubig. 2025. Openhands: An open platform for AI software developers as generalist agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations .
  28. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023a. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. Preprint , arXiv:2203.11171. · arXiv
  29. Yue Wang, Hung Le, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Nghi D. Q. Bui, Junnan Li, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2023b. Codet5+: Open code large language models for code understanding and generation. Preprint , arXiv:2305.07922. · arXiv
  30. Zora Zhiruo Wang, Akari Asai, Xinyan Velocity Yu, Frank F. Xu, Yiqing Xie, Graham Neubig, and Daniel Fried. 2024. Coderag-bench: Can retrieval augment code generation? Preprint , arXiv:2406.14497. · arXiv
  31. Yonghao Wu, Zheng Li, Jie M Zhang, Mike Papadakis, Mark Harman, and Yong Liu. 2023. Large language models in fault localisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15276 . · arXiv
  32. Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yinlin Deng, Soren Dunn, and Lingming Zhang. 2024. Agentless: Demystifying llm-based software engineering agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01489 . · arXiv
  33. John Yang, Carlos E Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. 2024. Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15793 . · arXiv
  34. Zhongming Yu, Hejia Zhang, Yujie Zhao, Hanxian Huang, Matrix Yao, Ke Ding, and Jishen Zhao. 2025. Orcaloca: An llm agent framework for software issue localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00350 . · arXiv
  35. Dejiao Zhang, Wasi Uddin Ahmad, Ming Tan, Hantian Ding, Ramesh Nallapati, Dan Roth, Xiaofei Ma, and Bing Xiang. 2024. CODE REPRESENTATION LEARNING AT SCALE. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Z., Tang, X., Deng, G., Wu, F., Wu, J., Jiang, Z., Prasanna, V., Cohan, A., & Wang, X.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415101712
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
LLM agents, multi-hop reasoning, software maintenance, natural language to code

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review