With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation, human-AI interaction is evolving from static text responses to dynamic, interactive HTML-based applications, which we term MiniApps. These applications require models to not only render visual interfaces but also construct customized interaction logic that adheres to real-world principles. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on algorithmic correctness or static layout reconstruction, failing to capture the capabilities required for this new paradigm. To address this gap, we introduce MiniAppBench, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate principle-driven, interactive application generation. Sourced from a real-world application with 10M+ generations, MiniAppBench distills 500 tasks across six domains (e.g., Games, Science, and Tools). Furthermore, to tackle the challenge of evaluating open-ended interactions where no single ground truth exists, we propose MiniAppEval, an agentic evaluation framework. Leveraging browser automation, it performs human-like exploratory testing to systematically assess applications across three dimensions: Intention, Static, and Dynamic. Our experiments reveal that current LLMs still face significant challenges in generating high-quality MiniApps, while MiniAppEval demonstrates high alignment with human judgment, establishing a reliable standard for future research. Our homepage is available in miniappbench.github.io.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The shift from text to MiniApps . Unlike static text, MiniApps transforms abstract explanations into intuitive visualizations and unlocks actionable tasks (e.g., diet tracking) that were previously impossible.
Figure 2: Failure Cases in Principle Adherence. MiniApps require models to capture and instantiate relevant real-world principles, while MiniAppEval proves effective due to its multi-component system design (eval-ref, code, playwright).
Benchmark
#Data
Task
Real-User
Div.
Comp.
RW-Prin.
MBPP
500
Algorithmic Problem Solving
✗
Low
High
Low
HumanEval
164
Algorithmic Problem Solving
✗
Low
High
Low
SWE-Bench
2,294
Repository-level Bug Fixing
✗
High
High
Low
MLE-Bench
75
Repository-level Software Engineering
✓
High
High
Low
PIQA
2,000
Physical Reasoning
✗
Low
Low
High
GSM8K
1,000
Mathematical Reasoning
✗
Low
Low
High
Table 1: Comparison of representative benchmarks across three families: code generation, real-world reasoning, and web development. Real-User indicates whether queries are sourced from real users. Div. (task diversity) is bucketed by the number of primary task categories (Low: <3 , Mid: 3 – 5 , High: >5 ). Comp. (task complexity) is approximated by the number of steps in the evaluation protocol (Low: 1, Mid: 2–5, High: >5 ). RW-Prin. indicates whether solving the queries requires real-world principles (e.g., physics or commonsense); details are provided in Appendix A.4.2 .
Figure 3: Overview of the MiniAppBench dataset and construction process. (a)–(d) illustrate the dataset construction pipeline. (e) summarizes the dataset features and distributions (domain and difficulty), with the distribution of subclasses shown in the side bar charts. (f) presents representative MiniApps examples from six domains.
Figure 4: MiniAppEval vs. Previous Methods. Unlike brittle scripts or rigid comparisons, MiniAppEval integrates code inspection with dynamic execution. It complements human evaluation by verifying underlying physical principles and automating tedious testing scenarios to ensure robust assessment.
Table 2: Performance of models on MiniAppBench : Pass Rate, Token Consumption, and Inference Time
Figure 5: Overall model pass rate on MiniAppBench
Figure 6: Token Length & Inference Time vs Average pass rate
Exp.
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
MiniAppEval
89.62
83.87
85.25
84.55
w/o Code
70.66 ↓ 18.96
32.73 ↓ 51.14
60.00 ↓ 25.25
42.35 ↓ 42.20
w/o Agent
66.48 ↓ 23.14
12.90 ↓ 70.97
53.33 ↓ 31.92
20.78 ↓ 63.77
w/o Eval Ref
60.12 ↓ 29.50
89.47 ↑ 5.60
46.36 ↓ 38.89
61.08 ↓ 23.47
Table 3: A blation results (%) . Metrics include accuracy (Acc.), precision (Prec.), recall (Rec.), and F1. The superscript arrows denote the absolute change relative to the MiniAppEval .
Model
Method
T/T
T/F
F/T
F/F
Acc.
Gemini-3-Pro
MiniAppEval
15
2
8
30
81.82
-Pro-Preview
Double-Blind
11
6
2
36
85.45 ↑ 3.63
GPT-5.2
MiniAppEval
16
3
8
28
80.00
Double-Blind
12
7
2
34
83.63 ↑ 3.63
Claude-
MiniAppEval
17
3
9
26
78.18
Opus-4.5
Double-Blind
11
9
0
35
83.63 ↑ 5.45
Table 4: Evaluation accuracy comparison between MiniAppEval and double-blind methods.
Model
JPass (%)
Acc. (%)
F1 (%)
GLM-4.7
18.5
94.5
94.5
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
28.0
90.7
90.7
GPT-5.2
46.0
92.3
92.4
Table 5: MiniAppEval –human agreement across models with different performance levels on the 200-item subset. JPass denotes the judge pass rate.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Domain
Subclass
Count
Ratio (%)
Science
Chemical
46
9.20
Biological Systems
44
8.80
Physics
37
7.40
Virtual Laboratory
35
7.00
Geometry
25
5.00
Total (Science)
187
37.40
Appendix
Table 6: The Data Domain Classification
Domain Distribution
Difficulty Distribution
Model Pass Rate
Domain
200 (%)
500 (%)
Level
200 (%)
500 (%)
Model
500 (%)
200 (%)
Δ
Science
35.0
37.4
Easy
28.5
29.4
GPT-5.2
45.46
46.00
+0.54
Games
23.0
24.2
Medium
42.0
39.2
Claude-Opus-4-5
41.14
41.50
+0.36
Tools
13.0
11.4
Hard
29.5
31.4
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
27.52
28.00
+0.48
Humanities
8.0
9.4
GLM-4.7
18.31
18.50
+0.19
Lifestyle
7.5
6.4
Qwen3-32B
0.66
0.50
-0.16
Appendix
Table 7: Representativeness of the 200-item subset compared with the full 500-task benchmark.
Domain
Easy
Medium
Hard
Total
Science
46 (25%)
72 (38%)
69 (37%)
187
Games
23 (19%)
49 (40%)
49 (40%)
121
Tools
13 (23%)
27 (47%)
17 (30%)
57
Visualization
30 (54%)
20 (36%)
6 (11%)
56
Humanities
16 (34%)
18 (38%)
13 (28%)
47
Lifestyle
19 (59%)
10 (31%)
3 (9%)
32
Appendix
Table 8: Domain by difficulty distribution of the 500-task benchmark.
Model
Temperature
Top- p
Max tokens
GPT-5.2
1.0
1.0
128,000
GPT-5.1
1.0
1.0
400,000
Claude-Opus-4.5
1.0
1.0
200,000
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
1.0
1.0
200,000
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
0.8
0.95
65,536
Gemini-3-Flash
0.8
0.95
65,536
Appendix
Table 9: Decoding settings for all evaluated models.
T
GPT-5.2
GLM-4.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
0.6
35.5
73.0
65.8
28.0
78.5
53.8
30.5
78.0
61.4
0.7
25.0
73.5
61.3
16.5
91.0
74.3
8.5
76.0
31.4
0.8
11.0
67.5
40.4
4.5
83.0
26.1
7.0
75.5
26.9
0.9
0.0
56.5
–
0.0
81.5
–
0.0
73.5
–
Appendix
Table 10: GPT-5.2 judge: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds and representative generation models.
T
GPT-5.2
GLM-4.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
0.6
53.5
70.0
69.1
43.5
78.0
68.6
48.5
70.0
55.2
0.7
42.5
82.0
79.1
20.0
76.5
49.5
36.5
82.0
67.3
0.8
28.5
85.0
79.2
9.0
76.5
33.8
21.5
91.0
77.5
0.9
23.5
80.0
70.1
2.0
74.5
10.5
6.5
87.0
48.0
Appendix
Table 11: Claude-Sonnet-4.5 judge: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds and representative generation models.
T
GPT-5.2
GLM-4.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
0.6
77.0
66.5
72.2
48.0
66.5
49.6
67.0
59.5
56.7
0.7
66.0
77.5
79.5
41.0
72.5
53.8
53.0
73.5
66.7
0.8
58.0
85.5
85.7
29.0
72.5
42.1
32.0
75.5
58.1
0.9
28.0
74.5
64.3
10.0
79.5
28.1
19.5
77.0
50.0
Appendix
Table 12: GLM-4.7 judge: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds and representative generation models.
T
GPT-5.2
GLM-4.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
0.6
85.5
58.0
67.4
55.5
63.0
50.0
62.0
64.5
59.9
0.7
81.5
62.0
69.6
50.5
68.0
53.6
55.0
71.5
65.0
0.8
75.5
68.0
73.1
39.0
79.5
64.3
50.5
76.0
68.8
0.9
59.5
84.0
84.5
21.5
83.0
57.5
31.5
67.0
43.1
Appendix
Table 13: Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct judge: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds and representative generation models.
T
GPT-5.2
GLM-4.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
0.6
57.5
85.6
89.1
38.5
77.3
65.3
45.5
89.8
90.0
0.7
55.0
88.2
90.6
36.0
81.8
68.2
41.5
80.2
78.0
0.8
46.0
92.3
92.4
18.5
94.5
94.5
28.0
90.7
90.7
0.9
32.0
68.6
68.8
11.5
79.9
52.3
23.0
58.4
36.9
Appendix
Table 14: Gemini-3-Pro-Preview judge: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds and representative generation models.
Model
T=0.6
T=0.7
T=0.8
T=0.9
GPT-5.2
71.1 (1)
62.0 (1)
45.5 (1)
35.4 (1)
Claude-Opus-4.5
62.0 (2)
52.6 (2)
41.1 (2)
23.1 (2)
GPT-5.1
55.2 (3)
45.5 (3)
32.0 (3)
21.1 (3)
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
47.1 (4)
36.8 (4)
27.5 (4)
13.8 (5)
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
42.4 (5)
33.6 (5)
26.4 (5)
14.2 (4)
GLM-4.7
35.5 (7)
26.8 (8)
18.3 (6)
9.3 (7)
Appendix
Table 15: Rankings across different thresholds. Pass rates are shown with ranks in parentheses.
Comparison
Spearman’s ρ
Kendall’s τ
Max Rank Diff.
T=0.6 vs. T=0.8
0.9941
0.9667
1
T=0.7 vs. T=0.8
0.9824
0.9333
2
T=0.9 vs. T=0.8
0.9765
0.9000
2
Appendix
Table 16: Ranking stability relative to T=0.8 .
T
GLM-4.7
GPT-5.2
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
Acc.
F1
Acc.
F1
Acc.
F1
0.6
52.6
54.1
69.3
80.0
62.9
74.0
0.7
61.7
56.3
72.5
81.6
72.6
79.1
0.8
73.4
63.7
81.7
86.8
79.2
81.3
0.9
81.8
65.9
84.3
87.1
75.1
70.3
Appendix
Table 17: Average-score criterion: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds.
T
GLM-4.7
GPT-5.2
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
Acc.
F1
Acc.
F1
Acc.
F1
0.6
57.1
54.8
72.5
81.6
69.5
77.6
0.7
59.1
54.0
76.5
83.8
76.1
80.5
0.8
69.5
61.2
81.0
86.4
76.1
78.7
0.9
76.0
61.9
79.7
83.9
69.5
66.7
Appendix
Table 18: Median-score criterion: 200-sample human-agreement results across thresholds.
Temp.
GPT-5.2
GLM-4.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
JPass
Acc.
F1
0.5
54.5
89.0
88.8
20.5
97.0
92.3
35.5
91.0
85.5
0.8
52.5
91.0
90.6
18.5
98.0
94.6
33.5
93.0
88.3
1.0
46.0
92.3
92.4
18.5
94.5
94.5
28.0
90.7
90.7
1.2
45.0
93.5
92.7
15.5
97.0
91.2
26.5
95.0
90.6
Appendix
Table 19: Temperature sensitivity of Gemini-3-Pro-Preview judge at threshold 0.8.
Generation Model
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Std.
CV
GPT-5.2
46.0
48.5
46.0
49.0
49.0
1.58
0.0330
GLM-4.7
18.5
17.5
18.5
16.5
17.5
0.84
0.0474
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
28.0
30.0
28.5
30.5
28.5
1.14
0.0393
Appendix
Table 20: Pass-rate stability over five generations from the same model.
Generation Model
5/5 Consensus
≥ 4/5 Consensus
Fleiss’ κ
GPT-5.2
93.5
100.0
0.948
GLM-4.7
94.5
99.5
0.924
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
89.5
100.0
0.905
Appendix
Table 21: Per-query consistency over five generations.
Generation Model
Eval 1
Eval 2
Eval 3
Eval 4
Eval 5
Std.
CV
GPT-5.2
46.0
47.0
47.5
44.5
46.5
1.14
0.025
GLM-4.7
18.5
18.5
18.0
18.0
17.5
0.42
0.023
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
28.0
29.0
27.5
28.5
30.0
1.00
0.035
Appendix
Table 22: Pass-rate stability over five repeated evaluations of the same samples.
Generation Model
5/5 Consensus
≥ 4/5 Consensus
Fleiss’ κ
GPT-5.2
95.0
100.0
0.960
GLM-4.7
96.5
100.0
0.953
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
95.5
100.0
0.959
Appendix
Table 23: Per-query consistency over five repeated evaluations.
Action
Description
browser_click
Simulates mouse clicks on UI control elements. Supports configurable mouse buttons (left, right, middle) and both single and double clicks. Commonly used for selecting items, activating controls, or triggering events.
browser_type
Simulates keyboard input for entering text, pressing keys, or invoking shortcuts (e.g., Ctrl+C, Enter). Enables fine-grained control over application behavior and supports both functional input and text entry.
browser_fill_form
Fills form fields with specified values, supporting various input types including text inputs, checkboxes, radio buttons, and dropdown selections. Allows batch form filling for efficient interaction with complex forms.
browser_evaluate
Executes JavaScript code to query DOM state or perform complex operations. Enables agents to extract information, manipulate page elements, or verify application state programmatically. Particularly useful for analyzing CSS styles, color schemes, and dynamic content.
browser_wait_for
Waits for specific conditions such as element appearance, text changes, or custom JavaScript predicates. Essential for handling asynchronous operations and ensuring elements are ready before interaction.
Appendix
Table 24: Summary of action types in the web-based evaluation environment.
Figure 7: Multi-dimensional trajectory analysis. The figure contains nine subplots: (a) tokens vs. step (scatter); (b) token distribution by step (boxplot); (c) average tokens vs. step with dispersion (mean/median/std); (d) cumulative time vs. step; (e) time interval vs. step (log scale); (f) tokens vs. time interval; (g) prompt tokens vs. completion tokens; (h) histogram of step values; (i) token statistics by step range.
Web application generation uses AI to turn natural-language, visual, or multimedia specifications into functional, interactive websites and applications.
Human evaluation provides a direct measure of the quality of LLM-generated web applications. However, fitting human judgments through automated evaluation remains challenging. Static benchmarks can credit functionality that exists in source code but is unreachable at runtime. Interactive benchmarks exercise the application, yet incomplete exploration can cause them to miss implemented functionality and confound application defects with agent execution failures. To address these limitations, we propose WebCraftBench, an interactive benchmark for evaluating web application generation from a software testing perspective. WebCraftBench instruments each generated application and uses code coverage to guide an agent in exploring its functionality through user-simulated interactions. It then abstracts the interaction trace into a state-transition graph and evaluates the application along three dimensions: visual aesthetics, usability, and requirement alignment. By separating exploration from scoring, WebCraftBench collects runtime evidence without constraining exploration to predefined acceptance criteria. WebCraftBench comprises 369 real-world user requirements and 5,088 acceptance criteria. Evaluation of 17 frontier LLMs reveals distinct strengths across the three dimensions, with no model leading on every dimension. On 197 validated sessions sampled from an internal arena, WebCraftBench achieves 85.3% agreement with human preferences, with agreement generally increasing as the score difference between paired applications grows. Further experiments show that coverage guidance improves exploration coverage and the model rankings remain stable when the judge model is replaced.
Chenxu Liu, Zilu Zou, Peizhong Gao +9
Hunyuan Team, Tencent · Tsinghua University · Peking University
Front-end web code has become a core product surface for every frontier LLM release, yet evaluating these interactive applications at development speed remains costly because human-judged leaderboards like Arena do not scale. Existing automated proxies typically lean on reference implementations, test suites, or rigid checklists, and tend to miss the reasoned synthesis a human reviewer performs over a live session. We articulate a new evaluation regime that is simultaneously reference-free, autonomously driven, and holistically reasoned, and instantiate it through two artifacts. \dataname is an 11-domain, 54-leaf, 1,000-query WebDev benchmark spanning both static-presentation and interactive-application tasks, balanced across three difficulty tiers and three target-language groups, with briefs rewritten to resist recall from circulated prompts. \framename, grounded in Flavell's metacognitive monitoring, separates evidence accumulation from judgment across three stages: Static Perception forms a first impression from passive observation; Agent-Driven Interaction explores the application autonomously while capturing continuous screen video, audio, and per-step screenshots; Dynamic Scoring issues holistic functionality and aesthetics verdicts with structured failure attribution only after the evidence chain is complete. On \dataname, \framename aligns closely with expert human ratings while surfacing substantial headroom across 13 frontier LLMs on interactive web generation. \noindenthttps://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cookie-3CE/
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated growing competence in web page generation. However, existing text-driven approaches rely on complex prompts that impose substantial demands on users and offer limited expressivity for page layout and cross-page visual coherence. Image-driven paradigms, which take UI screenshots as input, align more closely with real development workflows. However, current benchmarks focus primarily on visual fidelity and lack a systematic evaluation of the interaction capabilities in generated artifacts. To address this gap, we introduce UI2App, the first benchmark targeting interaction inference, the ability to recover application behavior from screenshots alone, without any textual or behavioral guidance. UI2App comprises 327 screenshots grouped into 45 state-coherent screenshot sets for runnable multi-route web applications. We design an end-to-end pipeline that evaluates each artifact along four dimensions: executability, navigation reachability, visual fidelity, and interaction inference. The interaction metric (IIS) assesses inferred interactions by functional correctness and state-management complexity, crediting any valid implementation rather than matching a single reference. Experiments on six frontier vision-language models reveal a marked capability mismatch between visual reconstruction and interaction realization: the visual-fidelity leader scores only 7.5 on IIS, ranking fourth and trailing the IIS leader by 5.2x. High-complexity interactions such as cross-page state remain a pervasive bottleneck, with half of the evaluated models scoring exactly zero on this dimension. Overall, the results indicate that inferring complete interaction behavior from static screenshots remains a key challenge for models.
Grace Man Chen, Litao Guo, Yifan Wu +5
1The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · 2The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology