# Cost-Effective Repository Exploration for Agentic Issue Localization

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29675 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29675/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 9 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [RepoGraph: Enhancing AI Software Engineering with Repository-level Code Graph](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14684/) (2024)
- [LocAgent: Graph-Guided LLM Agents for Code Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09089/) (2025)
- [A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of LLM-Based Explainable Fault Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05487/) (2023)
- [OrcaLoca: An LLM Agent Framework for Software Issue Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00350/) (2025)
- [SWE-Explore: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Explore Repositories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07297/) (2026)
- [SWE-Router: Routing in Multi-turn Agentic Software Engineering Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00053/) (2026)
- [Impact of Large Language Models of Code on Fault Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.09657/) (2024)
- [Loc2Repair: A Framework for Evaluating the Impact of File-Level Issue Localization in Repo-Level LLM Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30963/) (2026)
- [Gotta catch 'em all! Towards File Localisation from Issues at Large](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18319/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39989/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Repository exploration is a distinct and costly stage of coding-agent pipelines: before generating a patch, an agent must identify which repository files are likely to matter. We study whether this stage can be delegated to lower-cost models while retaining useful localization quality. Using our IssueLoc-Bench, we evaluate five explorer models under the same read-only interactive interface on 499 SWE-bench Verified-derived tasks and 500 tasks from 153 additional repositories. We measure early candidate discovery, top-three gold-file coverage, strict file-set recovery, agent time, and token usage, with paired instance-level uncertainty and repository-clustered sensitivity analysis. The highest-quality explorer leads across localization metrics, but substantially cheaper operating points emerge: depending on the model and evaluation arm, lower-cost explorers retain approximately 78-94% of the reference Hit@3 and 73-92% of its F1 while reducing mean agent time by 41-88% and token usage by 84-95%. The preferred operating point depends on how localization is consumed downstream: ranking and coverage metrics characterize recoverable candidate handoffs, whereas F1 and exact match characterize restrictive file gates. These results support treating repository exploration as an independently measurable and budgetable stage of modular coding agents, with explorer selection guided by the downstream handoff contract.