The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Enhancing repository-level software repair via repository-aware knowledge graphs
Open accessAbstract
Repository-level software repair faces challenges in bridging semantic gaps between issue descriptions and code patches. Existing approaches, which primarily rely on large language models (LLMs), are hindered by semantic ambiguities, limited understanding of structural context, and insufficient reasoning capabilities. To address these limitations, we propose KGCompass with two innovations: (1) a novel repository-aware knowledge graph (KG) that accurately links repository artifacts (issues and pull requests) and codebase entities (files, classes, and functions), allowing us to effectively narrow down the vast search space to only 20 most relevant functions with accurate candidate fault locations and contextual information, and (2) a path-guided repair mechanism that leverages KG-mined entity paths, tracing through which allows us to augment LLMs with relevant contextual information to generate precise patches along with their explanations. Experimental results in the SWE-bench Lite demonstrate that KGCompass achieves state-of-the-art single-LLM repair performance (58.3%) and function-level fault location accuracy (56.0%) across open-source approaches with a single repair model, costing only $0.2 per repair. Among the bugs that KGCompass successfully localizes, 89.7% lack explicit location hints in the issue and are found only through multi-hop graph traversal, where pure LLMs struggle to locate bugs accurately. Relative to pure-LLM baselines, KGCompass lifts the resolved rate by 50.8% on Claude-4 Sonnet, 30.2% on Claude-3.5 Sonnet, 115.7% on DeepSeek-V3, and 156.4% on Qwen2.5 Max. These consistent improvements demonstrate that this graph-guided repair framework delivers model-agnostic, cost-efficient repair and sets a strong new baseline for repository-level repair.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
TwinMem-Agent: Episodic and Semantic Memory for Repository-Level Program Repair
Wu, B., Luo, Z., Mu, F., & Xiang, L. (2026) · Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3803437.3807664
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, B., Ren, J., Jin, S., Liu, Y., Liu, F., Le, B., & Tian, H.
- Affiliations
- Aalto University (FI)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.21710
- OpenAlex
- W4416366023
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Keywords
- fault location, large language models, pull requests
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