Recompilation Is Not Enough: Test-Guided Decompiled-C Repair

Decompilers are useful tools used in reverse engineering to understand compiled source code. Reconstructing source code from compiled binaries is a challenging task, because high-level syntax, identifiers, and custom data types are generally lost as the compiler translates human-readable code to low-level machine code. Deterministic decompilers are useful tools for binary analysis, but can struggle to infer idiomatic syntax and identifier names. Generative AI models are a natural fit for reconstructing high-level syntax, identifiers, and types, but they can still suffer by hallucinating improper programming constructs and semantics. Instead of attempting to improve neural decompilers with more data and more training, we argue that compiler feedback can be used to dramatically improve the semantic correctness of neural decompiler outputs via search. Our system, Decaf (DECompilation with Automated Feedback), raises the neural decompilation rate from 26.0% on ExeBench to 83.9% on the Real -O2 split without sacrificing similarity to the original source code. We also find our automatic feedback methodology is highly effective for improving weaker neural decompilation models.

Decompilation -- recovering source code from compiled binaries -- is essential for security analysis, malware reverse engineering, and legacy software maintenance. However, existing decompilers produce code that often fails to compile or execute correctly, limiting their practical utility. We present a multi-agent framework that transforms decompiled code into re-executable source through Multi-level Constraint-Guided Decompilation (MCGD). Our approach employs a hierarchical validation pipeline with three constraint levels: (1) syntactic correctness via parsing, (2) compilability via GCC, and (3) behavioral equivalence via LLM-generated test cases. When validation fails, specialized LLM agents iteratively refine the code using structured error feedback. We evaluate our framework on 1,641 real-world binaries from ExeBench across three decompilers (RetDec, Ghidra, and Angr). Our framework achieves 84-97% re-executability, improving baseline decompiler output by 28-89 percentage points. In comparison with state-of-the-art LLM-based decompilation methods using the same GPT-4o backbone, our approach (84.1%) outperforms LLM4Decompile (80.3%), SK2Decompile (73.9%), and SALT4Decompile (61.8%). Our ablation study reveals that execution-based validation is critical: compile-only approaches achieve 0% behavioral correctness despite 91-99% compilation rates. The system converges efficiently, with 90%+ binaries reaching correctness within 2 iterations at an average cost of $0.03-0.05 per binary. Our results demonstrate that constraint-guided agentic refinement can bridge the gap between raw decompiler output and practically useful source code.

Malware analysts often inspect compiled binaries through decompiled pseudo-C, when source code is unavailable. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) can assist this process by classifying decompiled code as benign or malicious, but existing pipelines typically rely on a single decompiler view. We argue that this assumption is fragile: decompilers are lossy heuristic tools, and different decompilers can expose different artefacts of the same binary. We curate a benchmark of benign utilities and malicious programs spanning a range of threat behaviors. Each sample is compiled and decompiled with both Ghidra and RetDec, yielding matched pseudo-C views. Across a range of LLMs from major model families, we find that providing both decompiler views improves malicious-class F1, mainly by increasing recall on malicious samples. Agreement analyses further show that Ghidra and RetDec make partially different errors, supporting the view that decompiler outputs provide complementary evidence. Our results suggest that multi-decompiler prompting is a simple, training-free way to improve LLM-based malware triage in practical settings.