Abstract
Can an autonomous AI agent reverse engineer a binary as well as a skilled human analyst? Do they adopt the same strategy, and can agents scale to real-world programs? We compare human and LLM-based software reverse engineering (SRE): nine models tackle two compact static-analysis challenges previously solved by human analysts, scored with a common understanding rubric, and we record their complete interactions with IDA Pro. This lets us compare not only what humans and agents recover, but also how they investigate a binary. The best agents (GPT-5.5 Pro, Claude Opus 4.8, and Kimi K3) achieve statistically human-competitive understanding on both tasks, while weaker models remain far behind. Ablations show that the gap depends on code representation and workflow demands, not on model capability alone: open-weight models improve substantially with richer code representations, whereas frontier models show no significant change. Similar success rates hide different workflows. Humans repeatedly revisit functions and follow local program structure; strong agents jump across the binary, retrieve information broadly, and rarely return to inspected code, a behavior we call greedy fetching. This strategy is not fixed: given semantically richer code, agents fetch less without losing understanding. Because greedy fetching aggregates large amounts of code in the agent's context, we measure context-window saturation across 4,000 real-world binaries: large windows accommodate many programs, but larger applications and lower-level representations quickly exhaust them. Autonomous reverse engineering is becoming competitive, with a large speed advantage, but scaling it will require better navigation, selective retrieval, and persistent analysis state, not merely larger context windows.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14960
