cs.SEMay 6, 2026

The Single-File Test: A Longitudinal Public-Interface Evaluation of First-Output LLM Web Generation with Social Reach Tracking

Authors: Diego Cabezas Palacios

Abstract

This paper presents an eight-week observational comparison of 68 single-file HTML generations collected across 17 public experiments in the "HTML AI Battle" project between December 10, 2025 and February 4, 2026. Four reasoning model families, GPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude, were compared under a fixed public-interface protocol with no custom instructions, no personality tuning, and no repair prompts. Each output was evaluated from a rendered browser video using human scores and a Gemini LLM-as-a-judge layer for prompt adherence, functional correctness, and UI quality, then packaged into a standardized social-media protocol spanning X (Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube. The tracker was also used for two supervised predictive analyses: an experiment-level model for 24-hour X impressions and a generation-level model for HTML verbosity. Under this protocol, Claude was the strongest and most consistent family, leading mean performance and winning 9/17 prompts under the primary human weighted score. Longer measured reasoning time was not associated with higher quality overall. Gemini as a judge was significantly more lenient than the human evaluator on functional correctness and overall performance, while stable self-favoring bias remained unresolved. The exploratory X-impressions model remained weak under post-screen cross-validation (MAE = 46,874, R^2 = -0.377), whereas the HTML-lines model performed better, with a model-family-only baseline outperforming prompt-aware alternatives (MAE = 135.2, R^2 = 0.576). Overall, selected pre-publication technical/audio variables were not sufficient to predict 24-hour X reach, while code verbosity was driven much more by model family than by prompt wording. The comparisons remain observational and are limited by public-interface drift, access-path differences, and one primary human scorer.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Sep 8, 2026cs.AI

API Benchmark Scores Do Not Reliably Transfer to Chatbot Interfaces

Benchmark scores are a central currency in model releases: they inform purchasing decisions, shape public trust, and influence policy. Yet, a key assumption underlying benchmark scores is that the model performance measured through APIs faithfully reflects the behavior of deployed systems. We challenge this assumption by auditing ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini across seven systems and nine benchmarks spanning general capability, social bias, and sycophancy. We find systematic API--interface differences in both accuracy and consistency. On average, API evaluations score 3.4 percentage points higher in accuracy and 2.1 percentage points higher in test--retest agreement than corresponding interface evaluations. For ChatGPT, the performance difference between API and interface access exceeds the API-only difference between GPT 5.3 and GPT 5.4. Put differently, switching access surfaces can degrade performance as much as downgrading a full model generation. We further test whether exposed API controls can reproduce interface behavior by varying system prompts, sampling parameters, and reasoning settings. These controls shift behavior in some cases but do not reliably eliminate the gap. Our findings document a context-validity gap: measurements obtained through APIs do not necessarily generalize to corresponding deployed interfaces, complicating the use of API evaluations as proxies for deployed systems.
Jennifer Wang, Joachim Baumann, Daniel E. Ho +1
Artificial Intelligence BenchmarksApplication Programming InterfacesOpenaiValidity
AskPDF
May 28, 2026cs.AI

Cookie-Bench: Continuous On-screen Key Interaction Evaluation for Web Generation

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. \textbf{\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. \textbf{\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/
Haoyue Yang, Zhangxiao Shen, Fan Ding +8
WebLeaderboardPublic NeuroqwertyMetacognition
AskPDF
Apr 16, 2026cs.CY

LLMbench: A Comparative Close Reading Workbench for Large Language Models

LLMbench is a browser-based workbench for the comparative close reading of large language model (LLM) outputs. Where existing tools for LLM comparison, such as Google PAIR's LLM Comparator are engineered for quantitative evaluation and user-rating metrics, LLMbench is oriented towards the hermeneutic practices of the digital humanities. Two model responses to the same prompt are side by side in annotatable panels with four analytical overlays (Probabilities for token-level log-probability inspection, Differences for word-level diff across the two panels, Tone for Hyland-style metadiscourse analysis, and Structure for sentence-level parsing with discourse connective highlighting), alongside five analytical modes, Stochastic Variation, Temperature Gradient, Prompt Sensitivity, Token Probabilities, and Cross-Model Divergence, that make the probabilistic structure of generated text legible at the token level. The tool treats the generated text as a research object in its own right from a probability distribution, a text that could have been otherwise, and provides visualisations including continuous heatmaps, entropy sparklines, pixel maps, and three-dimensional probability terrains, that show the counterfactual history from which each word emerged. This paper describes the tool's architecture, its six modes, and its design rationale, and argues that log-probability data, currently underused in humanistic and social-scientific readings of AI, is an important resource for a critical studies of generative AI models.
David M. Berry
Large LanguageDiscourse
AskPDF