This work unify 19 interface-quality principles from three complementary sources of HCI knowledge: WCAG 2.2 accessibility standards, deceptive design taxonomies, and established theories of perception, cognition, and interaction to investigate whether a lightweight vision-language model can serve as an effective critic for generated interfaces.
Abstract
Small language models and coding agents increasingly generate web front-end code, yet their outputs are typically evaluated primarily for functional correctness. A generated interface may compile, render, and pass unit tests while still violating established interface quality principles, including accessibility barriers, deceptive design patterns, poor visual hierarchy, and excessive decision complexity. Existing auditing approaches face a trade-off between cost, coverage, and scalability: expert human review provides rich judgment but is slow and expensive; frontier vision-language models offer broader reasoning capabilities but remain costly to deploy at scale; and rule-based tools such as axe-core and Lighthouse are inexpensive but primarily capture mechanically checkable accessibility issues. We investigate whether a lightweight vision-language model can serve as an effective critic for generated interfaces. We unify 19 interface-quality principles from three complementary sources of HCI knowledge: WCAG 2.2 accessibility standards, deceptive design taxonomies, and established theories of perception, cognition, and interaction. To train this critic, we construct a verified dataset of approximately 10,000 generated web pages by synthetically injecting known violations into clean, LLM-generated Tailwind pages. Continued reinforcement learning on a 4B vision-language model improves micro-F1 from 36\% to 84\%, with 13 of 19 principles exceeding 80\% F1. The resulting critic can audit generated interfaces, filter low-quality interface training data, and provide a reward signal for design-aware code generation. We release our data-generation recipe and injection/verification prompts to support reproducible evaluation and future work on scalable interface-quality assessment.
Two novel contributions are introduced: CodeEval and CodeQual, an open-source execution framework that provides researchers with a ready-to-use evaluation pipeline for evaluating and improving LLMs in software engineering contexts, encompassing both functional correctness assessment and subjective code quality evaluation.
Large language models increasingly generate complete websites from natural-language descriptions, and reinforcement learning has become a central approach to closing their remaining functional gap. This training regime is bottlenecked by reward design. Hand-authored browser scripts are executable yet costly to write for open-ended requirements, while VLM and GUI-agent graders scale but may issue verdicts before observing the decisive state. We propose WebGrader, a self-evolving programmatic grader that autonomously derives the required interaction flows from each website request, represents each flow as an executable Flow Contract, and uses its execution outcome as an RL reward. WebGrader materializes the generated project in a live browser, grounds target actions against the source code and live DOM, and collects visual, DOM, response, and persistent-state evidence along the same browser trajectory. A residual-driven offline loop then discovers reusable verifier skills, screens them on disjoint validation pages, and freezes the promoted skill graph before policy training. By separating test planning, action grounding, evidence collection, and semantic judgment, WebGrader issues a Pass verdict only after observing the requested transition. On WebGen-Bench, WebGrader trains an 8B policy to a 52.01% functional success rate, outperforming a matched appearance-plus-script reward by 7.88 points and surpassing o4-mini and DeepSeek-v4-flash. On WG-core-250, the policy reaches a Full Score of 44.953 and surpasses Qwen3-Coder-480B.
Procedural generators produce useful verifiable reasoning problems at scale, but have received less attention as data for completion-supervised fine-tuning. We introduce Reasoning Core, a collection of 50 generators spanning mathematics, logic, planning, state tracking, formal languages, structured data, games, causality, and code, with semantic scorers, difficulty controls, and task evaluators. Under a matched completion-supervised protocol, we compare Reasoning Core with Procedural Warmup, Reasoning Gym, and SynLogic across four base-model settings and multiple training durations. In the primary 3B comparison, Reasoning Core achieves the highest mean scores on DROP, LogiQA, and ARC-Challenge, exceeding both the baseline without procedural data and all three alternative procedural collections. Task-level analyses show that semantic validity alone does not ensure training utility, highlighting compact targets and calibrated difficulty as important design factors. We ran audits combining model-assisted review, human adjudication, and regression testing. Applied throughout Reasoning Core development and to the other collections, they reveal subtle mismatches among generation, rendering, targets, and scoring, a reminder that procedural generation alone does not guarantee correctness. The library, generated datasets, and audit material are publicly available.
Damien Sileo, V. Lacombe, Dimitri Kachler· 0 citations
Reasoning representations are increasingly used as explanations for large language model outputs. Yet they are typically evaluated with model-centric criteria, such as answer accuracy and faithfulness, leaving it unclear whether they help people evaluate model responses. In this work, we study reasoning representations as human-facing interfaces rather than proxies for model reasoning ability. We conduct a controlled human study of six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, supported by a web-based framework that randomizes task domains, problem instances, and representation order. The study collects fine-grained judgments of structural understanding, error detection and localization, and trust calibration. Our study shows a mismatch between perceived preference and support for human evaluation. Participants prefer planning- and decomposition-based representations, but simpler chain-of-thought traces better support verification, trust, and interpretability. Preferred representations also introduce calibration risks, with more false alarms on correct traces and high trust despite low willingness to verify.
These findings recast a matched Skill as a hypothesis about a particular Skill-project-model triple rather than a portable asset, reframing injection as a per-deployment routing decision and making length-matched controls and per-model audits a minimum standard for Agent-Skill evaluation.
Bridging model-based control and learned policies in long-horizon manipulation has harbored a silent disagreement: control executes specified objectives, learning amortizes that behavior into a reactive policy, yet existing protocols discard task semantics, leaving rewards hand-crafted and behavior drifting from what control verified.We introduce Semantically UNified (SUN) Programs, typed executables where geometric and contact relations are defined once and compiled into aligned Model Predictive Control (MPC) costs, satisfaction predicates, RL rewards, transition guards, and diagnostics. Our system, Kuafu, driven by large vision language systems, automatically synthesizes SUN Programs from language and scene semantics, screens feasibility via MPC, and retains semantics while training stage-conditioned policies. Across nine tasks, Kuafu achieves 82.03% macro-success, outperforming sparse-reward (35.67%) and Stage-BC (24.75%) baselines. At 8192-way scale, it generates 10.57x the successful trajectory time per hour of human teleoperation. With 500 trajectories per task, Kuafu data trains DP3 policies to 46.0% simulation success (vs. 22.4% for alternatives) and 34.7% on physical Franka and Kinova robots. These results establish that simulation-screened task semantics can effectively amortize control into robust policies, without demonstrations or manual dense rewards, unifying symbolic planning and data-driven execution.
Wei-Qi Wang, Zhi Li, Yuliang Lei et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
