Jieke Shi

Xiuwei Shang, Li Hu, Xiao Jiang et al.

Human-Oriented Binary Reverse Engineering (HOBRE) aims to transform decompiled pseudocode into a more human-friendly representation, thereby reducing the cognitive burden of reverse analysis and improving efficiency. However, reliably evaluating HOBRE outputs remains a fundamental challenge: human evaluation is costly, time-consuming, and difficult to scale, while existing automated metrics either require executable test cases and runtime environments that are often unavailable for real-world binaries, or rely on high-quality source code references that are typically inaccessible and fail to capture semantically equivalent but lexically diverse outputs. Although LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm is naturally well-suited to HOBRE evaluation, its effectiveness remains underexplored. This paper presents the first systematic investigation of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm for HOBRE across three representative tasks: function name recovery, binary code summarization, and decompilation optimization. We introduce BinJudgeBench, the first expert-annotated, reference-free evaluation benchmark based on multi-dimensional human judgment, where LLM-as-a-Judge achieves an average correlation of 63.20\% with human judgment, outperforming traditional automated metrics at 35.04\%. By analyzing judge configurations across backbone LLMs, prompting strategies, and decoding temperatures, we find that no ``one-size-fits-all'' configuration exists, as the optimal setup varies across tasks and individual samples. To address this, we propose BinJudge, which employs a lightweight routing mechanism to adaptively select the optimal judge configuration for each task and sample. BinJudge improves correlation with human experts by 4.5\%-24.7\% and reduces API cost to 0.06$\times$-0.84$\times$ of that of static best configurations, providing a scalable, cost-effective, and high-fidelity automated evaluation scheme for HOBRE.

Weifeng Sun, Jieke Shi, Zhou Yang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, yet generated programs may exhibit social bias through unfair or differential treatment of sensitive demographic attributes. While prior work mainly studies direct code generation, bias in reasoning-based generation remains underexplored. We conduct the first systematic study of social bias in reasoning-based code generation, evaluating 9 standard LLMs and large reasoning models (LRMs) on realistic bias-sensitive tasks across three human-centered decision scenarios. We find that reasoning generally reduces bias, lowering the average bias rate from 0.64 to 0.40, but the effect varies substantially across models. Meanwhile, code quality is not consistently preserved, with the average quality dropping from 0.72 to 0.59. Biased reasoning strongly predicts biased code, and adjusting generation configurations alone is insufficient for robust mitigation. Based on these findings, we propose ProbeDebias, a reasoning-aware framework that detects and rewrites biased reasoning traces before code generation. ProbeDebias achieves 87.76% F1 for reasoning-bias detection and reduces code bias by 83.73% on average while largely preserving quality. Compared with SOTA baselines, it further reduces average bias by 52.70%-54.42% and improves quality by 9.79%-36.79%. These results highlight the value of reasoning-stage analysis for trustworthy code generation.