arXiv subjects

Youjie Zheng

Publications and source records attributed to Youjie Zheng.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

PPTBench: Can Coding Agents Reconstruct the Visual World through Structured, Editable Slides

Coding agents are beginning to act in the visual world. They now build webpages, GUIs, games, 3D scenes, diagrams, and documents. Success in such visual coding requires bridging two spaces: inferring visual structure and expressing it programmatically. Slides are a core medium of knowledge work, widely used to communicate ideas and collaborate in a form that people can directly inspect and edit. Therefore, they provide an ideal testbed for visual coding, as they require agents to recover visual structure and realize it as editable objects. However, existing benchmarks either rely on subjective open-ended evaluation, produce non-editable code outputs, or focus only on local editing rather than end-to-end visual reconstruction. We introduce PPTBench, which benchmarks visual coding through editable slide reconstruction. It contains 500 tasks, each based on a scientific flow diagram from a real arXiv paper and requiring agents to reconstruct it as a single PPTX page composed of native, editable objects. A four-stage Agentic Judge evaluates artifact validity, semantic correctness, rendering quality, and fine-grained visual quality. Across 31 configurations spanning model families, effort levels, and harnesses, the best configuration, Kimi K3, reaches only 67.80, while the median scores 19.47. We find that agents can reliably produce valid PPTX files but still struggle with semantic and visual correctness, especially text details. More reasoning mainly helps agents pass hard gates, while stronger verification is more consistently associated with higher quality. PPTBench advances the vision of coding agents that can understand and reconstruct the visual world through structured, editable code.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SWE Refactor Bench: Can Coding Agents Complete a Long-Horizon, Whole-Repository Stack Migration?

Modern software systems accumulate technical debt over decades of development, which makes migration expensive and largely manual. As coding agents become increasingly capable at bug fixing, can they autonomously perform such migrations? Existing benchmarks cannot answer this question because they evaluate only behavioural correctness, not whether the migration actually occurred. This leads an easy hack: agents copy the original implementation to make tests pass. We call this Blindness. To address this problem, we introduce SWE Refactor Bench, a benchmark comprising 20 whole-repository migrations, covering 4 kinds of technical debt. A three-stage evaluation protocol measures both migration completeness and behavioural correctness. (1) Migration Audit verifies that the migration occurred. (2) Behavioural Tests measure correctness with a fixed test suite. (3) Agentic Verification uses 6 independent coding agents to generate targeted tests for hidden behavioural differences. Across 520 runs from 8 frontier models and 26 model-effort configurations, only 28 of 520 runs ($5.4\%$) pass all three stages, 13 of the 20 tasks receive no accepted solution, and the best model (claude-opus-5) scores $47.0/100$. Migration completeness and behavioural correctness are distinct abilities: a few runs preserve behaviour by skipping the migration and are stopped at Migration Audit; most attempt it and break behaviour, and are stopped at Behavioural Tests. Agents cannot deliver a perfect migration: among the 340 runs that pass Migration Audit, $58\%$ reach $99\%$ of the fixed checks, yet only $26\%$ reach $100\%$. Agent capability differs across migration categories: agents score $31.4$ on build toolchain rewrites but only $5.6$ on language rewrites. Together, these findings position SWE Refactor Bench as a rigorous testbed for developing coding agents for reliable whole-repository migrations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

AI4AI-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents in Algorithmic Design for Recursive Self-Improvement

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) asks whether an AI system can improve the process that produces AI systems, so that the next system inherits the improvement. That process is the training algorithm: a better objective or update rule improves the compute\mbox{-}capability exchange rate for every subsequent run, including the one that produces the next agent. Whether RSI is feasible therefore turns on whether an agent can design training algorithms. No benchmark isolates that ability: existing suites are won by collecting data or by tuning hyperparameters, and none tells a change to how a run is executed apart from a change to how the model learns. We present AI4AI\mbox{-}Bench, 10 frozen research repositories spanning 10 training algorithm families. In each task, an agent has 4 hours on one B300 to rewrite the training algorithm; its code is then rerun from scratch for up to 12 hours and scored by a fixed evaluator hidden from the agent, against the repository's original algorithm under the same procedure. Because the 10 metrics are incommensurable, every task is mapped onto one scale on which $0$ is an uninformative model, $0.1$ is the algorithm the repository ships, and $1.0$ is the task optimum. Across 29 configurations of 6 systems on all 10 tasks the mean score is $0.166$, and the best system reaches $0.250$: even the strongest closes under a fifth of the distance between the algorithm that was already there and the optimum. The submissions show where that distance went: most never change how the model learns at all, and the minority that do average $0.226$ against $0.126$ for the rest. More reasoning effort mostly buys the willingness to go there, taking that minority from $8\%$ of submissions to $64\%$ and the mean score from $0.094$ to $0.196$. We release the task suite, the evaluators and every scored submission, so that the measurement can be repeated as these systems change.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Scalable Behaviour Cloning on Browser Using via Skill Distillation

Internet users collectively perform an enormous range of skilled work through web browsers, from software development and document editing to search, forms, and enterprise workflows, making human browsing a highly scalable but under-exploited source of reusable browser skills. We argue that the bottleneck for browser agents is decision-making under incomplete information rather than low-level operation, and that the priors agents lack are already implicit in human interaction traces. We therefore study scalable behavior cloning for browser agents via skill distillation, converting user interaction trajectories into compact natural-language skills that agents can read, retrieve, reuse, and compose directly. We further organize the distilled skills into a skill graph so that growth proceeds through consolidation rather than unbounded accumulation. This suggests that the scalability of browser agents may come less from manually designed tasks and more from the collective skills already expressed by internet users. Our project is available at: https://lab.einsia.ai/browserbc/.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Frontier-Eng: Benchmarking Self-Evolving Agents on Real-World Engineering Tasks with Generative Optimization

Current LLM agent benchmarks, which predominantly focus on binary pass/fail tasks such as code generation or search-based question answering, often neglect the value of real-world engineering that is often captured through the iterative optimization of feasible designs. To this end, we introduce Frontier-Eng, a human-verified benchmark for generative optimization -- an iterative propose-execute-evaluate loop in which an agent generates candidate artifacts, receives executable verifier feedback, and revises them under a fixed interaction budget -- spanning $47$ tasks across five broad engineering categories. Unlike previous suites, Frontier-Eng tasks are grounded in industrial-grade simulators and verifiers that provide continuous reward signals and enforce hard feasibility constraints under constrained budgets. We evaluate eight frontier language models using representative search frameworks, finding that while GPT 5.4 achieves the most robust performance, the benchmark remains challenging for all models. Our analysis suggests a dual power-law decay in improvement frequency ($\sim$ 1/iteration) and magnitude ($\sim$ 1/improvement count). We further show that although width improves parallelism and diversity, depth remains crucial for hard-won improvements under a fixed budget. Frontier-Eng establishes a new standard for assessing the capacity of AI agents to integrate domain knowledge with executable feedback to solve complex, open-ended engineering problems.

cs.AI↗