MT-Web2Code: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Multi-Turn Regional Reconstruction and Localized Modification

Large language models are rapidly evolving into interactive coding agents capable of end-to-end web coding, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only narrow slices of this capability, typically text-conditioned generation with static-correctness metrics, leaving visual fidelity, interaction quality, and codebase-level reasoning largely unmeasured. We introduce WebCompass, a multimodal benchmark that provides unified lifecycle evaluation of web engineering capability. Recognizing that real-world web coding is an iterative cycle of generation, editing, and repair, WebCompass spans three input modalities (text, image, video) and three task types (generation, editing, repair), yielding seven task categories that mirror professional workflows. Through a multi-stage, human-in-the-loop pipeline, we curate instances covering 15 generation domains, 16 editing operation types, and 11 repair defect types, each annotated at Easy/Medium/Hard levels. For evaluation, we adopt a checklist-guided LLM-as-a-Judge protocol for editing and repair, and propose a novel Agent-as-a-Judge paradigm for generation that autonomously executes generated websites in a real browser, explores interactive behaviors via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), and iteratively synthesizes targeted test cases, closely approximating human acceptance testing. We evaluate representative closed-source and open-source models and observe that: (1) closed-source models remain substantially stronger and more balanced; (2) editing and repair exhibit distinct difficulty profiles, with repair preserving interactivity better but remaining execution-challenging; (3) aesthetics is the most persistent bottleneck, especially for open-source models; and (4) framework choice materially affects outcomes, with Vue consistently challenging while React and Vanilla/HTML perform more strongly depending on task type.

Existing code-generation benchmarks score a single mapping from a complete prompt to a one-shot output. However, real web development is different. Users seldom write a full spec at the start; many requirements only become clear once they look at an intermediate result and react to it. We present Asuka-Bench, a benchmark that pairs underspecified user intent with multi-round refinement, grounded in browser-rendered behavior. Each task is resolved through a closed loop: a Code Agent generates a web project, a UI Agent executes test cases on the deployed site, and a User LLM turns evaluation outcomes into natural-language feedback for the next round. The benchmark comprises 50 web tasks with 784 evaluation criteria and 2402 expected outcomes. We benchmark 8 LLMs across 2 agent frameworks. The results separate models clearly: weighted Task Pass Rate varies by 38 percentage points and models also differ substantially in their ability to repair from feedback. Asuka-Bench is also far from saturated: even the strongest model completes only 52% of projects after three rounds.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to translate webpage screenshots into front-end code, but repeated UI patterns may sway them toward visually incorrect yet pattern-consistent outputs. In this work, we test how repeated webpage patterns hurt MLLM accuracy on an objective screenshot-to-code fill-in-the-blank task. We introduce the first benchmark for visual pattern-completion bias, where one localized element in a repeated UI pattern is perturbed and the model must recover the masked width or font-size value from the screenshot and HTML context. Starting from 30 webpages curated from the Design2Code dataset, we build 1,440 evaluated screenshots spanning structural card and text-style patterns under standard and noise-overlaid conditions. We evaluate five frontier MLLMs and find that all are strongly biased toward the repeated baseline. Mean bias rate reaches 69.78% on card-width perturbations and 80.22% on text font-size perturbations, while mean accuracy is only 21.17% and 7.89%, respectively. Codex-5.3 performs best but still drops from 68.61% accuracy on cards to 13.89% on text, while Flash-3.0 reaches 96.11% bias on text. Noise, subtler perturbations, and boundary positions further increase bias rate. Reasoning analysis further shows that greater reasoning effort correlates with lower bias, yet qualitative evidence reveals that models can identify the anomalous element and still override it with the pattern-consistent answer. Our results identify a concrete failure mode in multimodal code generation and show that its severity is strongly associated with visual saliency