Decaf: Improving Neural Decompilation with Automatic Feedback and Search
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
24 of 54 references.
References · 24
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
- 2021Decision Transformer: Reinforcement Learning via Sequence Modelingcited by 1,528
- 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
12 more
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2019Advantage-Weighted Regression: Simple and Scalable Off-Policy Reinforcement Learningcited by 750
- 2023Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samplescited by 192
- 2017Controlling Linguistic Style Aspects in Neural Language Generationcited by 147
- 2019DIRE: A Neural Approach to Decompiled Identifier Namingcited by 36
- 2023SLaDe: A Portable Small Language Model Decompiler for Optimized Assemblycited by 28
- 2021Augmenting Decompiler Output with Learned Variable Names and Typescited by 23
- 2025EquiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Reasoning about Program Semantics via Equivalence Checkingcited by 23
- 2022Beyond the C: Retargetable Decompilation using Neural Machine Translationcited by 15
- 2016Polymorphic Type Inference for Machine Codecited by 5
- 2024BinSub: The Simple Essence of Polymorphic Type Inference for Machine Codecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026When LLM Decompilers Recompile More and Preserve Lesscited by 0
- 2026When LLM Decompilers Recompile More and Preserve Less4 Sep 2026