Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University of Waterloo · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Large language models can generate runnable web applications from natural-language requirements, but many generated applications still fail interactive tasks. Existing generate-execute-repair pipelines execute the generated application and use task outcomes or error messages to guide code revision. However, this feedback often misses the runtime behavior between a browser action and the final task outcome, making interaction-level failures difficult to diagnose. Therefore, we propose TeleGen, an observability-enhanced framework for LLM-based web application generation. TeleGen instruments generated applications, collects runtime telemetry during task execution, and compresses raw telemetry logs into concise briefs for repair. We evaluate TeleGen on WebGen-Bench and Web-Bench. On WebGen-Bench, TeleGen improves task success from 67.7% with repair without telemetry to 76.2%, an increase of 8.5 percentage points. On Web-Bench, it improves cumulative Pass@2 from 21.7% to 29.8%. Ablation results show that runtime telemetry provides a useful diagnostic signal, while telemetry briefs make this signal more effective and less costly to use. Further analysis shows that telemetry is especially helpful for failures involving hidden execution paths, such as navigation, form workflows, and frontend-backend coordination.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of TeleGen . Given a website description and UI task suite, a coding agent first generates an initial web application, denoted as the v1 application . TeleGen then instruments a separate copy of the v1 application and re-runs the task executor to collect runtime telemetry, including actions, network events, errors, and state changes. A compression agent combines the raw traces with the task context and produces a compact telemetry brief. Finally, the repair agent edits the clean v1 source code using the telemetry brief and task feedback, producing a repaired v2 application , which is re-run by the task executor for final result analysis.
Benchmark
Setting
Passed / Total
Overall
Δ
Categories
Content
User
Data
WebGen-Bench
Initial generation
399 / 647
61.7
–
71.3
55.0
64.4
No-Telemetry repair
438 / 647
67.7
+6.0
78.7
60.4
70.0
TeleGen
493 / 647
76.2
+14.5
88.5
68.1
78.8
Easy
Moderate
Challenging
WebBench
Pass@1
142 / 1000
14.2
–
44.0
7.2
0.6
Table 1: For WebGen-Bench, Overall, Content, User and Data report task-level success rates for the full benchmark and its three project categories. For Web-Bench, Pass1 is the first-attempt success rate, while Original Pass2 and TeleGen Pass2 report cumulative success after the original and telemetry-augmented second attempts. Easy, Moderate and Challenging report category-level cumulative success rate. For WebGen-Bench, Δ denotes the overall improvement of TeleGen over Initial generation; for Web-Bench, Δ denotes the overall improvement over Pass1. All values are percentages except passed-task counts.
Setting
Passed
Success
Δ
No-telemetry
438
67.70%
–
No-brief
484
74.81%
+7.11 pp
TeleGen
493
76.20%
+8.50 pp
Table 2: Repair effectiveness under DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Δ is measured against no-telemetry repair.
Setting
Input
Output
Total
No-telemetry
971.8K
19.0K
990.8K
No-brief
1462.1K
19.6K
1481.7K
TeleGen
1439.6K
18.4K
1458.1K
Table 3: Average token cost per project under DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Values are reported in thousands of tokens.
Figure 2: Failure types among tasks solved only by Telemetry-Guided Repair under DeepSeek-V4-Flash. These tasks fail under No-telemetry repair but succeed when telemetry brief is provided.
Figure 3: Representative form/input workflow repair enabled by runtime evidence. Although the form appears valid, runtime telemetry shows that client data is loaded but no client-selection interaction occurs. Telemetry-Guided Repair replaces the hard-to-operate dropdown with explicit clickable client cards, allowing the browser agent to complete the workflow.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Model
Setting
Passed / Total
Overall
Δ
Categories
Content
User
Data
WebGen-Bench
DeepSeek- V4-Pro
Initial generation
432 / 647
66.8
–
85.6
55.9
67.5
No-telemetry repair
443 / 647
68.5
+1.7
83.9
61.0
66.2
TeleGen
476 / 647
73.6
+6.8
88.5
66.5
71.2
Qwen3.5-Plus
Initial generation
324 / 647
50.1
–
71.8
43.1
40.0
No-telemetry repair
351 / 647
54.3
+4.2
75.9
47.0
45.0
Appendix
Table 4: Additional model results. For WebGen-Bench, Overall, Content, User, and Data report task-level success rates for the full benchmark and three project categories. For Gemini-3-Flash-Preview, all rates use the canonical 647-task denominator, with missing evaluations counted as unsuccessful. For Web-Bench, Pass1 is the first-attempt success rate, while Original Pass2 and TeleGen Pass2 report cumulative success after the original and telemetry-augmented second attempts. Easy, Moderate, and Challenging report category-level cumulative success rate. Δ denotes the overall improvement over Initial generation for WebGen-Bench and over Pass1 for Web-Bench. All values are percentages except passed-task counts.
Human +
Human –
Total
WV success
28
2
30
WV failure
4
26
30
Total
32
28
60
Appendix
Table 5: Agreement between WebVoyager (WV) and the independent human annotator on the balanced 60-task audit sample.
Category
Count
Functional repair
24
Mixed functional/judgeability
2
Judgeability-only
4
Appendix
Table 6: Manual categorization of 30 audited TeleGen -only successes.
Setting
Calls
Cost ($)
Time (s)
No-Tel.
24.0
0.28
711
Raw-Tel.
29.9
0.42
747
TeleGen
29.5
0.41
710
Appendix
Table 7: Mean per-project cost and runtime accounting on WebGen-Bench. Cost is API cost under the DeepSeek-V4-Flash pricing used in this analysis; time is recorded repair-stage wall-clock time.
Base
Level
Gain
Loss
Net
No-tel.
Project
48
16
+32
Task
106
51
+55
No brief
Project
34
14
+20
Task
65
56
+9
Appendix
Table 8: Project- and task-level comparison between TeleGen and each baseline. Gain denotes cases where telemetry-guided repair performs better, Loss denotes cases where the baseline performs better, and Net is Gain minus Loss.
Pair (A/B)
A-only
B-only
p
No-Tel./ TeleGen
51
106
1.35×10−5
Raw-Tel./ TeleGen
56
65
0.4672
Orig.P@2/ TeleGen P@2
45
126
4.49×10−10
Appendix
Table 9: Two-sided exact McNemar tests on paired task outcomes. A-only and B-only denote tasks solved exclusively by the first and second settings in each pair.
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
Evaluating WebUI code generation at scale is difficult: outputs may compile and look plausible yet fail under user interaction, and prior benchmarks largely rely on free-form prompts with static checks (build success, screenshots) that miss functional correctness. We introduce WebUIProof, an execution-oriented benchmark that provides structured specifications and dense, executable interaction tests for WebUI generation across two task families: general WebUIs (e.g., dashboards, game, interactive tools) and 3D interactive simulation (e.g., particle/galaxy systems, physics dynamics). WebUIProof includes a UI-agent harness that runs executable interaction tests in a headless browser using an iterative plan--act--observe loop: it locates DOM elements, performs actions, observes resulting UI/DOM changes, and checks the specified assertions. We evaluate across eight commercial LLMs and observe frequent failures on interaction-based requirements even when pages render successfully, especially on 3D simulation interfaces. Finally, we show the UI-agent harness can provide outcome-level training signals. Training compact models (e.g., Qwen2.5 14B and MIMO 7B) with RL rewards derived from executable interaction tests improves functional completion while reducing build failures.
Large language models can generate interactive web interfaces, but reliable generative UI requires maintaining an executable artifact as user requests evolve. We introduce EvoGenUI-Bench, a benchmark for multi-turn interface maintenance comprising 150 five-turn tasks and 750 turns across three scenarios: information presentation, executable interaction, and tool-grounded external state. We execute generated artifacts in a browser and evaluate them using screenshots, source and DOM evidence, actor traces, and runtime logs. Beyond turn-level and episode-level success, we measure cross-turn retention with Adjacent Pass Retention. Across eight models, even the strongest achieves 74.9% Turn Pass while completing only 37.3% of five-turn episodes; APR further falls to 52.4% on tool-grounded tasks. Diagnostic analysis shows that presentation failures center on information architecture, interaction failures on derived-state propagation and affordance binding, and tool-grounded failures additionally involve external-state grounding and requirement decomposition. These results reframe generative UI evaluation from judging isolated outputs to testing whether interface behavior, derived state, external state, and assistant claims remain synchronized as the artifact evolves.