Code merging is a significant challenge, particularly in large-scale projects. Existing solutions, including program analysis and machine learning, show promise but face critical limitations. Program analysis lacks the ability to infer developers' intentions, relying on conservative strategies that offload unresolved conflicts for manual handling. Meanwhile, model-based approaches struggle with conflicts involving complex code dependencies due to insufficient contextual awareness. To address these gaps, we introduce Rover, a novel conflict resolution system that integrates program analysis with large language models (LLMs). To obtain context-aware prompts, we propose Multi-layer Code Property Graph (MtCPG), a new representation capturing inter-file dependencies and enabling contextual analysis for a given conflict. Using graph connectivity algorithms, Rover further clusters conflicting code and associated changes into meaningful "contexts" that guide the LLM in generating accurate resolutions. We compared Rover with standalone LLMs, machine learning baseline MergeGen, and suggestion provider tool WizardMerge with adjacent code as the contexts. Evaluation results show that Rover surpasses all of these approaches in terms of conflict resolution, achieving higher similarity to ground-truth resolutions at character, lexical, and semantic levels.
This paper applies machine learning to the difficult and important task of version control merging. (1) We constructed a dataset, Merge-Bench, of 7938 real-world merge conflict hunks from 1439 GitHub repositories. The ground truth is the merge resolution that developers committed to the repository. Our dataset construction methodology is scalable to arbitrary amounts of data since no manual labeling is required. (2) We trained a model, LLMergeJ, to resolve merge conflicts in Java programs. Our approach uses Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), an online reinforcement learning method, to train a Large Language Model (LLM). (3) We performed two evaluations of the performance of LLMs on resolving merge conflicts. On Java programs, LLMergeJ with 14B parameters outperforms 3 commercial LLMs, trailing only Gemini 2.5 Pro. Across 11 programming languages, commercial LLM performance is largely stable from language to language. The best models correctly resolve less than 60% of merge conflicts.
LLVM is a widely used compiler infrastructure whose scale and complexity make issue resolution labor-intensive and challenging. Although large language models (LLMs) have recently achieved remarkable success in issue resolution, their effectiveness on complex system-level LLVM compiler remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce LLVM-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark for LLVM issue resolution, containing 423 real-world, validated tasks collected from the LLVM project. We further develop LLVM-Gym, a scalable evaluation platform that automates issue reproduction, patch application, compiler building, and test execution. Using LLVM-Bench and LLVM-Gym, we conduct a comprehensive study of four representative LLMs, six retrieval configurations, and three agents. Our results show that current LLM-based issue resolution techniques remain limited on LLVM-Bench, with patch invalidity and build failures as the dominant failure modes. We further reveal a strong complementarity among different LLMs and agents, motivating LLVM-Ens, a lightweight ensemble approach that expands the patch space through integrating the patches generated by diverse techniques, filters incorrect and redundant candidates, and identifies the most promising solution. Our results show that LLVM-Ens achieves a resolution rate of up to 21.99%, further improving LLVM issue resolution.
Atomic commits, which address a single development concern, are a best practice in software development. In practice, however, developers often produce tangled commits that mix unrelated changes, complicating code review and maintenance. Prior untangling approaches (rule-based, feature-based, or graph-based) have made progress but typically rely on shallow signals and struggle to distinguish explicit dependencies (e.g., control/data flow) from implicit ones (e.g., semantic or conceptual relationships). In this paper, we propose ColaUntangle, a new collaborative consultation framework for commit untangling that models both explicit and implicit dependencies among code changes. ColaUntangle integrates Large Language Model (LLM)-driven agents in a multi-agent architecture: one agent specializes in explicit dependencies, another in implicit ones, and a reviewer agent synthesizes their perspectives through iterative consultation. To capture structural and contextual information, we construct Explicit and Implicit Contexts, enabling agents to reason over code relationships with both symbolic and semantic depth. We evaluate ColaUntangle on two widely-used datasets (1,612 C# and 14k Java tangled commits). Experimental results show that ColaUntangle outperforms the best-performing baseline, achieving an improvement of 44% on the C# dataset and 82% on the Java dataset. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based collaborative frameworks for advancing automated commit untangling tasks.