ExecRetrieval: Measuring the Functional-Correctness Gap in Code-Embedding Retrieval

Embedding-based code retrieval is a core component of coding agents and retrieval-augmented code generation, where retrieving correct code matters more than retrieving lexically similar code. Existing code-retrieval benchmarks do not plant controlled, execution-verified single-edit variants of each query's canonical implementation in the search pool, leaving the question of whether embeddings can functionally discriminate correct from near-clone-but-incorrect code unanswered in a retrieval setting. Resolving this requires a benchmark whose search pool itself contains the relevant counterfactuals -- execution-verified buggy variants near-identical to each canonical -- so that a retriever's rank ordering can be directly tested for functional discrimination rather than topical or identity overlap. We introduce ExecRetrieval, 939 Python tasks each paired with one execution-verified canonical implementation and up to four execution-verified buggy distractors, each generated by a mechanical mutation making a single targeted edit, and evaluate 23 dense embedding configurations plus BM25 under provider-native invocation with paired McNemar tests and query-level bootstrap intervals. With near-clone counterfactuals in the pool, the top hosted system reaches exec@10 = 1.00 but only exec@1 = 0.331; rank-1 misses are paired buggy variants 91.5-99.4% of the time across the four leading systems, and the canonical scores below at least one of its four paired distractors in 67-78% of queries on the leading systems. The full dataset, execution oracle, embedding matrices, environment snapshot, and pairwise statistical tests are released at the URL in Appendix D.

Natural Language Code Retrieval for 1C:Enterprise: An Open Benchmark and Efficient Bi-Encoder

Natural language code retrieval is a rapidly evolving task in computer science. However, the 1C:Enterprise ecosystem combines Russian syntax with highly domain-specific terminology, for which open datasets and specialized models have been virtually non-existent. We present a comprehensive pipeline for 1C code retrieval: an open benchmark of 3,413 real-world, PII-scrubbed query-code pairs, a reproducible evaluation harness, and a specialized bi-encoder. To overcome scarce labeled data, we fine-tune on 784,057 synthetic triplets generated by google/gemma-4-26B-A4B-it from public code repositories, using Matryoshka Representation Learning (MRL) and a privacy-aware tokenizer. Because the benchmark subsets differ in size, we report balanced-subset macro, query-weighted micro, and forum-only results. Our model reaches 0.5992 balanced macro nDCG@10, 0.5044 micro, and 0.4617 on forum, versus 0.4932 macro for the baseline architecture and 0.5404 for google/embeddinggemma-300m. Removing every benchmark example flagged by the conservative exact/13-gram overlap audit leaves 0.6011 balanced macro (0.5010 micro), indicating that detected train-benchmark overlap does not explain the headline result. MRL truncation to 256 dimensions preserves 99.9% of retrieval quality while reducing dense-index storage and exact similarity arithmetic by a factor of three.

Practical Source Code Recovery from Binary Functions Using Anchor-Based Retrieval and LLM Reasoning

We present a practical pipeline for recovering source code from stripped binary functions by combining reverse engineering, anchor-based source code retrieval, and large language model reasoning. Our binary-to-source-code retrieval method attempts to identify the source function from a source code database, rather than generating approximate decompiled pseudocode. It extracts anchors such as strings, constants, external calls, and available function names using Ghidra, retrieves candidate files via an inverted-index search database, narrows candidates to likely function snippets, and re-ranks them with a large language model (LLM) based on disassembly, decompiled code, and source metadata. Confident matches can also serve as anchors in later passes. In an evaluation backed by our high-fidelity source code database on a stripped, optimized tcpdump binary, our proposed binary-to-source matching method achieves 95.2% assembly instruction coverage. Experiments on a GitHub-based retrieval database showed lower performance with 35.5% instruction coverage on average, mainly due to retrieval misses. These results show that source-level binary recovery excels with high-quality databases and remains a useful tool in noisy environments.

Recall Before Rerank: Benchmarking Deep Learning Models for Large-Scale Code-to-Code Retrieval

Semantic code search and clone detection are essential for software development, maintenance, and reuse. This paper evaluates the effectiveness, efficiency, and scalability of contemporary deep learning models for first-stage recall in large-scale code-to-code search engines. Benchmarking across multiple programming languages and datasets reveals critical limits in the precision and scalability of these models on Terabyte-scale source-code collections. We present LLM-based code normalisation and query-rewriting schemes that yield significant gains in precision for lower-performing models. Our results question the sustainability of resource-constrained deployment and the assumed robustness of current code-specialised LLMs across datasets. We conclude with actionable insights for building scalable, efficient code-retrieval systems.

From Fragments to Paths: Task-Level Context Recovery for Large Industrial Codebases

Large language models have shown strong performance on software engineering (SE) tasks, yet understanding large industrial repositories remains challenging. Existing methods often retrieve only local fragments and fail to recover the broader task-relevant context needed for complex repository-level tasks. We present DeepDiscovery, a task-level repository-understanding method for large industrial codebases. DeepDiscovery uses a two-stage \textit{Location--Inference} framework to localize high-confidence task anchors and recover broader task-relevant context over multi-relational repository structure under budget constraints. Across controlled method-level evaluation, organization-internal industrial repository-understanding scenarios, and end-to-end evaluation on SWE-bench Verified, DeepDiscovery consistently improves task-relevant file recovery and downstream SE performance. On 27 medium-scale tasks, DeepDiscovery achieves the best file recovery quality among five representative baselines without offline preprocessing. On organization-internal industrial tasks from a production-scale integrated codebase ecosystem, including 27 medium-scale tasks and 40 large-scale tasks, DeepDiscovery improves Full Recall Rate across multiple AI coding systems, with absolute gains ranging from 1.6 to 9.2 percentage points on large subprojects and from 2.5 to 7.4 percentage points on medium-scale subprojects. In a controlled end-to-end evaluation on SWE-bench Verified, a system equipped with DeepDiscovery achieves a 78.6\% Solve Rate, outperforming the corresponding baseline by 8.2 percentage points. These results suggest that stronger task-level repository understanding can improve coding-agent performance on complex SE tasks.

Code Isn't Memory: A Structural Codebase Index Inside a Coding Agent

Coding agents now interleave LLMs with retrieval over the working repository, and retrieval implementations vary widely across deployed harnesses. Inside a fixed coding-agent harness on a fixed model, does adding a structural codebase index actually change cost or resolve? We ran three arms (the harness with the index, the same harness without it, and an agentic-grep comparator) on SWE-PolyBench Verified and SWE-bench Pro with Claude Opus 4.7 held fixed throughout, across three seeds, inside a leak-audited per-task sandbox. The within-harness ablation produces a large localization gain and a statistically separated resolve gain, with no cost penalty per cell and lower cost per solve. The cross-harness check shows that the index does not regress against an agentic-grep baseline on resolve or localization, again at no cost penalty. We release the per-cell exclusion ledger, the leak-audit script, the localization extractor, and the results database. The deployment question for a structural codebase index is thus not whether it is too expensive to run (across seeds, the index lands at a lower $/solved than agentic grep) but whether the workload includes multi-file changes where structural ranking pays off.