Academic

ProgramBench

Updated 10/12/2026

Can language models rebuild programs from scratch?

As of October 12, 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 ranks first on ProgramBench with 18.50%, followed by Claude Fable 5.1 (7.00%) and Claude Sonnet 5.5 (6.50%).

ProgramBenchRebuilding programs from binaries
ACCURACY

ProgramBench leaderboard

Rank Model Accuracy Cost / Test Input / Output Cost Duration
1 Claude Opus 5.5 18.50% $68.05 $4 / $20 2h24m
2 Claude Fable 5.1 7.00% $58.52 $10 / $50 2h27m
3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 6.50% $35.86 $2 / $10 2h07m
4 GPT-6 Astra 5.50% $11.57 $10 / $50 27m02s
5 GPT-6.1 Sol 3.00% $2.87 $2 / $10 1h10m
6 Claude Opus 5 3.00% $60.29 $5 / $25 2h55m
7 Gemini 4 Argon 2.50% $17.66 $4 / $20 1h11m
8 Claude Haiku 5.5 2.50% $6.83 $0.1 / $0.5 1h13m
9 Muse Spark 1.3 Max 2.50% $54.29 $1.25 / $4.25 5h28m
10 Claude Fable 5 2.00% $75.68 $10 / $50 2h37m
11 GPT-6 Sol 2.00% $11.67 $2 / $10 46m11s
12 Kimi K3 2.00% $70.48 $3 / $15 5h42m
13 GPT-5.6 Sol 1.50% $15.29 $4 / $20 29m24s
14 GLM 5.3 1.50% $21.96 $1.4 / $4.4 4h16m
15 Grok 4.6 1.00% $16.76 $2 / $6 4h27m
16 Claude Opus 4.8 1.00% $31.27 $5 / $25 1h32m
17 Gemini 3.8 Flash 1.00% $10.93 $1.5 / $7.5 46m39s
18 Grok 4.7 0.50% $46.49 $2 / $6 3h38m
19 MiMo V2.6 Flash 0.50% $0.47 $0.14 / $0.28 3h22m
20 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0.50% $0.90 $0.3 / $1.2 1h02m
21 GPT-5.6 Terra 0.50% $5.38 $2 / $12 33m36s
22 Muse Spark 1.3 0.50% $11.56 $1.25 / $4.25 1h09m
23 MiMo V2.6 Pro 0.50% $0.73 $0.435 / $0.87 3h00m
24 GPT 5.5 0.50% $6.95 $5 / $30 22m03s
25 GLM 5.2 0.50% $12.58 $1.4 / $4.4 2h06m
26 GPT-6 Luna 0.50% $0.18 $0.1 / $0.5 28m55s
27 Wonder Full 0.50% $28.65 $4 / $20 6h04m
28 GPT 5.4 (high) 0.50% $2.27 $2.5 / $15 15m58s
29 Muse Spark 1.2 0.50% $2.47 $1.25 / $4.25 26m38s
30 Claude Sonnet 4.6 0.50% N/A $3 / $15 1h12m
31 Inkling Small 0.50% $0.48 $0.3 / $1.2 28m31s
32 Hy4 Preview 0.00% $12.81 $0.834 / $2.501 2h10m
33 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 0.00% $0.43 $1.32 / $3.96 1h23m
34 Claude Sonnet 5 0.00% $24.36 $2 / $10 1h31m
35 Qwen 3.8 Max 0.00% $12.36 $2 / $6 5h54m
36 Gemini 3.7 Flash 0.00% $7.13 $1.5 / $7.5 21m30s
37 Claude Opus 4.7 0.00% N/A $5 / $25 54m07s
38 GPT-5.6 Luna 0.00% $0.94 $0.2 / $1.2 41m34s
39 DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 0.00% $1.29 $0.44 / $1.32 5h39m
40 GPT 5.4 (xhigh) 0.00% N/A $2.5 / $15 39m46s
41 GLM 5.3 Flash 0.00% $0.80 $0.075 / $0.25 5h30m
42 Grok 4.5 0.00% $4.12 $2 / $6 18m59s
43 GPT 5.4 Mini 0.00% N/A $0.75 / $4.5 53m45s
44 Gemini 3.6 Flash 0.00% $5.92 $1.5 / $7.5 47m33s
45 Muse Spark 1.1 0.00% $13.06 $1.25 / $4.25 5h43m
46 Gemini 3.5 Flash 0.00% N/A $1.5 / $9 18m25s
47 GLM 5.1 0.00% N/A $1 / $3.2 1h06m
48 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (02/26) 0.00% $2.63 $2 / $12 12m36s
49 Qwen 3.6 Plus 0.00% N/A $0.5 / $3 33m01s
50 Qwen 3.8 27B 0.00% $17.99 $0.5 / $3 5h57m
51 Kimi K2.7 Code 0.00% $3.19 $0.95 / $4 1h04m
52 Kimi K2.6 0.00% N/A $0.95 / $4 1h20m
53 Nemotron 3 Ultra 0.00% N/A N/A 1h02m
54 DeepSeek V4 0.00% N/A $1.32 / $3.96 1h03m
55 Gemini 3 Flash (12/25) 0.00% $0.44 $0.5 / $3 6m59s
56 Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 0.00% $0.34 $0.3 / $2.5 7m15s
57 Claude Haiku 4.5 (Thinking) 0.00% N/A $1 / $5 7m37s
58 Grok 4.3 0.00% $0.36 $1.25 / $2.5 3m56s
59 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 0.00% $0.22 $0.05 / $0.2 24m26s
60 Laguna XS.2 0.00% N/A N/A 25m42s
61 Inkling 0.00% $4.14 $1 / $4.05 45m34s
62 Laguna M.1 0.00% N/A N/A 1h22m
63 Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview 0.00% $0.06 $0.25 / $1.5 2m56s
64 MiniMax-M2.7 0.00% N/A $0.3 / $1.2 24m20s

Background

ProgramBench evaluates whether models can reconstruct command-line programs from an executable binary and a behavioral specification. Each task asks the model to produce an implementation from scratch that compiles and passes the benchmark’s hidden tests.

The benchmark’s headline metric is intentionally strict: a task is counted as Fully Resolved only when the submitted implementation passes all tests. Like the original benchmark, we also report Almost Resolved, the percentage of tasks where at least 95% of hidden tests pass. Finally, Raw Pass Rate reports the average percent of hidden behavioral tests passed per task.

This benchmark was developed by the ProgramBench team; we’d like to thank them for their efforts in building this benchmark. If you’re interested in learning more about ProgramBench, visit programbench.com.

Results

Results summary

ProgramBench leaders by raw pass rate
Model Raw Pass Rate Almost Resolved Fully Resolved
Claude Opus 5.5 87.0% 130 37
GPT-6 Astra 85.4% 100 11
GPT-6.1 Sol 85.3% 92 6
Gemini 4 Argon 83.7% 82 5
Claude Fable 5.1 82.7% 107 14

Pass-rate distribution. Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 each pass at least half of hidden tests on 166 tasks. Fable 5 reaches the 95% threshold on 66 tasks. Opus 4.8 reaches it on 31 tasks.

Task-level scores. Of 200 tasks, 131 reach a 95% pass rate for at least one model. Thirteen are fully solved by at least one model. Every task reaches 25% for at least one model.

Interactive analysis

Loading interactive charts and the task-level heatmap.


Methodology

We evaluate models on the 200 public ProgramBench tasks. Each task gives the model a compiled command-line program and a behavioral specification, then asks the model to produce a cleanroom source-code implementation that matches the original program’s behavior.

All models use the same mini-SWE-agent harness, orchestrated through Valkyrie with model calls routed through model-library. The agent has a bash tool, an offline sandbox, and the ProgramBench cleanroom prompt. It may inspect the provided files and run the executable, but it may not use the internet, look up source code or package registries, wrap the provided binary, reuse object files, or use decompilers, disassemblers, tracing, or instrumentation. The provided binary is execute-only.

We follow the public ProgramBench evaluation setup. Models receive 1,000 steps, a 6 hour wall-clock limit, a 180 second action timeout, and 10,000 character head/tail tool-output truncation. A submission contains source files and a compile script. We compile the submission once, then evaluate each hidden test branch in a fresh container created from the compiled image. First-pass branch evaluations use 10 xdist workers.