Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

STALL+: Boosting LLM-based Repository-level Code Completion with Static Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.10018 v1 pith:MUT6AI3K submitted 2024-06-14 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords codeintegrationstaticanalysiscompletionrepository-levelllm-basedbest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Repository-level code completion is challenging as it involves complicated contexts from multiple files in the repository. To date, researchers have proposed two technical categories to enhance LLM-based repository-level code completion, i.e., retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and static analysis integration. This work performs the first study on the static analysis integration in LLM-based repository-level code completion by investigating both the effectiveness and efficiency of static analysis integration strategies across different phases of code completion. We first implement a framework STALL+, which supports an extendable and customizable integration of multiple static analysis strategies into the complete pipeline of LLM-based repository-level code completion; and based on STALL+, we perform extensive experiments by including different code LLMs on the latest repository-level code completion benchmark CrossCodeEval. Our findings show that integrating file-level dependencies in prompting phase performs the best while the integration in post-processing phase performs the worse. Additionally, we observe different improvements from static analysis between dynamic languages and static languages, i.e., the best combination is prompting-phase with decoding-phase integration for Java while the best combination is prompting-phase with post-processing-phase integration for Python given the limitations of statically analyzing dynamic languages. Additionally, we find the complementarity between RAG and static analysis integration as well as their cost-effectiveness after combination.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. WebDesignIter: Co-Evolving Design Knowledge for Repository-Level Front-End Code Generation

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A co-evolving design-and-code knowledge graph improves multi-iteration front-end repository generation by ~9.5 Pass@2 points and cuts input tokens 25–30× versus agent baselines.

  2. Towards Iterative End-to-End Software Development: A Feature-Driven Multi-Agent Framework

    cs.SE 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    EvoDev introduces an iterative feature-driven framework with a DAG-based Feature Map for context propagation that improves LLM agent performance on end-to-end software development tasks by 56.8% over the best baseline.

  3. Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities of AI-assisted Codebase Generation

    cs.SE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Developers prompting codebase-level AI assistants are often dissatisfied with generated code, citing missing functionality, poor code quality, and communication gaps, despite varied prompting strategies.

  4. A Deep Dive into Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Code Completion: Experience on WeChat

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On WeChat's closed-source codebase, similarity-based RAG with combined BM25 and GTE-Qwen retrieval improves open-source LLM code completion more than identifier-based retrieval, with gains growing for larger models.

Pith tools