PreprintCited by 9Software Engineering ResearchTopic ModelingSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Code Graph Model (CGM): A Graph-Integrated Large Language Model for Repository-Level Software Engineering Tasks

Open access

Abstract

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in function-level code generation, yet repository-level software engineering tasks remain challenging. Current solutions predominantly rely on proprietary LLM agents, which introduce unpredictability and limit accessibility, raising concerns about data privacy and model customization. This paper investigates whether open-source LLMs can effectively address repository-level tasks without requiring agent-based approaches. We demonstrate this is possible by enabling LLMs to comprehend functions and files within codebases through their semantic information and structural dependencies. To this end, we introduce Code Graph Models (CGMs), which integrate repository code graph structures into the LLM's attention mechanism and map node attributes to the LLM's input space using a specialized adapter. When combined with an agentless graph RAG framework, our approach achieves a 43.00% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Lite benchmark using the open-source Qwen2.5-72B model. This performance ranks first among open weight models, second among methods with open-source systems, and eighth overall, surpassing the previous best open-source model-based method by 12.33%.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.16901

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.

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

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

Metadata

Authors
Tao, H., Zhang, Y., Tang, Z., Peng, H., Zhu, X., Liu, B., Yang, Y., Zhang, Z., Xu, Z., Zhang, H., Zhu, L., Wang, R., Yu, H., Li, J., & Di, P.
Affiliations
  • Ant Group (China) (CN)
  • ShanghaiTech University (CN)
  • Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Xiamen University (CN)
  • Shanghai University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
17905-17945
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416453608
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9
FWCI
8.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
large language models, code graph, GraphRAG, open-source LLMs, program comprehension, code generation, attention mechanism

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