REFORGE: A Method for Benchmarking LLMs' Reverse Engineering Capabilities in Decompiled Binary Function Naming

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07738v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 23:17:03 GMT
• Title: REFORGE: A Method for Benchmarking LLMs' Reverse Engineering Capabilities in Decompiled Binary Function Naming
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to reverse-engineering tasks.<n>Claims about their capability, however, outpace our ability to measure it.<n>This paper presents Reforge, a provenance-tracked pipeline that constructs function-level ground truth from C source.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to reverse-engineering tasks, and recent threat-intelligence reporting shows them operating inside live offensive-security workflows. Claims about their capability, however, outpace our ability to measure it. Existing benchmarks for LLM-assisted binary analysis treat the construction of function-level ground truth as a solved pre-processing step and report accuracy without disclosing how many functions were reliably evaluable. We argue that the principal obstacle to fair evaluation is not model capability but the reliability of binary-to-source alignment under compiler optimization. This paper presents Reforge, a provenance-tracked pipeline that constructs function-level ground truth from C source through compilation, DWARF and syntactic extraction, alignment, and decompilation, and that operationalizes alignment uncertainty as an eight-gate confidence funnel with three-tier stratification. On a controlled micro-benchmark, high-confidence yield falls from 87.2% to 65.9% across optimization levels, and unpaired comparisons overstate optimization-induced performance decay through survivorship bias. A proof-of-concept evaluation of seven contemporary LLMs on function naming demonstrates the substrate and motivates uncertainty-aware benchmarking practice

Related papers

• Introspective Uncertainty Estimation for LLM-Based Code Generation [0.0]
  This thesis investigates whether Introspective Uncertainty Estimation can reliably indicate correctness at the response and line levels for code generation tasks.<n>The objective is to determine the extent to which hidden states encode information about functional code correctness and how this can be leveraged for practical risk assessment and fault localization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-12T14:43:07Z)
• RepoReasoner: Evaluating Repository-Level Code Reasoning Ability of Long-Context Language Models [54.53236295237077]
  We introduce RepoReasoner, a benchmark for evaluating repository-level code reasoning.<n> Output Prediction measures fine-grained, stateful execution reasoning across files.<n>Call Chain Prediction evaluates high-level architectural dependency understanding under noisy context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:12:41Z)
• Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models [47.009623327601226]
  We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:41:26Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• Prism: Efficient Test-Time Scaling via Hierarchical Search and Self-Verification for Discrete Diffusion Language Models [96.0074341403456]
  Inference-time compute has re-emerged as a practical way to improve LLM reasoning.<n>Most test-time scaling (TTS) algorithms rely on autoregressive decoding.<n>We propose Prism, an efficient TTS framework for dLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T09:14:51Z)
• RealSec-bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Secure Code Generation in Real-World Repositories [58.32028251925354]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code generation, but their proficiency in producing secure code remains a critical, under-explored area.<n>We introduce RealSec-bench, a new benchmark for secure code generation meticulously constructed from real-world, high-risk Java repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T08:29:01Z)
• From Brute Force to Semantic Insight: Performance-Guided Data Transformation Design with LLMs [48.83701310501069]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved notable performance in code synthesis.<n>We introduce a performance-aware, closed-loop solution that enables LLMs to autonomously engineer optimal transformations.<n>We fine-tune LLMs with Low-Rank Adaptation on a novel repository of more than 6,000 empirically evaluated PyTorch augmentation functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T11:13:02Z)
• Structured Prompting Enables More Robust Evaluation of Language Models [38.53918044830268]
  We present a DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning.<n>We find that without structured prompting, HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average) and performance estimates vary more across benchmarks.<n>This is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T20:37:59Z)
• Dynamic Stability of LLM-Generated Code [6.120340803716395]
  Current evaluations of LLMs for code generation overlook the fact that functionally correct solutions can differ significantly in algorithmic complexity.<n>We introduce a principled framework for evaluating the dynamic stability of generated code.<n>Our findings call for stability-aware objectives in code generation and new benchmarks with test cases for robust, real-world evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T09:58:06Z)
• EVALOOOP: A Self-Consistency-Centered Framework for Assessing Large Language Model Robustness in Programming [8.52533297070733]
  EVALOOOP is an assessment framework that evaluates robustness from a self-consistency perspective.<n>We evaluate 96 popular large language models (LLMs) on the MBPP Plus benchmark.<n> EVALOOOP induces a 2.65%-47.62% absolute drop in pass@1 accuracy within ten loops.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T01:02:33Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.