Reliable Graph-RAG for Codebases: AST-Derived Graphs vs LLM-Extracted Knowledge Graphs
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866914252119343104 |
|---|---|
| author | Chinthareddy, Manideep Reddy |
| author_facet | Chinthareddy, Manideep Reddy |
| contents | Retrieval-Augmented Generation for software engineering often relies on vector similarity search, which captures topical similarity but can fail on multi-hop architectural reasoning such as controller to service to repository chains, interface-driven wiring, and inheritance. This paper benchmarks three retrieval pipelines on Java codebases (Shopizer, with additional runs on ThingsBoard and OpenMRS Core): (A) vector-only No-Graph RAG, (B) an LLM-generated knowledge graph RAG (LLM-KB), and (C) a deterministic AST-derived knowledge graph RAG (DKB) built with Tree-sitter and bidirectional traversal.
Using 15 architecture and code-tracing queries per repository, we measure indexing time, query latency, corpus coverage, cost, and answer correctness. DKB builds its graph in seconds, while LLM-KB requires much longer graph generation. LLM-KB also shows indexing incompleteness: on Shopizer, 377 files are skipped or missed, reducing embedded chunk coverage and graph size compared to DKB. End-to-end cost is modest for DKB relative to the vector-only baseline but much higher for LLM-KB, especially as repository scale increases. Query latency is similar for No-Graph and DKB, while LLM-KB is slower and more variable. On the Shopizer question suite, DKB achieves the highest correctness, LLM-KB is close behind, and the vector-only baseline performs worst on upstream architectural queries and has the highest hallucination risk. Overall, deterministic AST-derived graphs provide more reliable coverage and multi-hop grounding than LLM-extracted graphs at substantially lower indexing cost. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_08773 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Reliable Graph-RAG for Codebases: AST-Derived Graphs vs LLM-Extracted Knowledge Graphs Chinthareddy, Manideep Reddy Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence Retrieval-Augmented Generation for software engineering often relies on vector similarity search, which captures topical similarity but can fail on multi-hop architectural reasoning such as controller to service to repository chains, interface-driven wiring, and inheritance. This paper benchmarks three retrieval pipelines on Java codebases (Shopizer, with additional runs on ThingsBoard and OpenMRS Core): (A) vector-only No-Graph RAG, (B) an LLM-generated knowledge graph RAG (LLM-KB), and (C) a deterministic AST-derived knowledge graph RAG (DKB) built with Tree-sitter and bidirectional traversal. Using 15 architecture and code-tracing queries per repository, we measure indexing time, query latency, corpus coverage, cost, and answer correctness. DKB builds its graph in seconds, while LLM-KB requires much longer graph generation. LLM-KB also shows indexing incompleteness: on Shopizer, 377 files are skipped or missed, reducing embedded chunk coverage and graph size compared to DKB. End-to-end cost is modest for DKB relative to the vector-only baseline but much higher for LLM-KB, especially as repository scale increases. Query latency is similar for No-Graph and DKB, while LLM-KB is slower and more variable. On the Shopizer question suite, DKB achieves the highest correctness, LLM-KB is close behind, and the vector-only baseline performs worst on upstream architectural queries and has the highest hallucination risk. Overall, deterministic AST-derived graphs provide more reliable coverage and multi-hop grounding than LLM-extracted graphs at substantially lower indexing cost. |
| title | Reliable Graph-RAG for Codebases: AST-Derived Graphs vs LLM-Extracted Knowledge Graphs |
| topic | Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08773 |