Papers
arxiv:2608.29387

EvoGenUI-Bench: Evaluating LLMs as Multi-Turn Generative UI Assistants

Published on Aug 29
· Submitted by
Yue Peng
on Sep 1
Authors:
,
,
,
,

Abstract

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.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Can generative UI assistants keep one executable interface correct as user requirements evolve across multiple turns?

EvoGenUI-Bench introduces 150 five-turn tasks (750 turns) spanning information presentation, executable interaction, and tool-grounded external state. Generated artifacts are executed in a browser and evaluated using screenshots, source/DOM evidence, actor traces, and runtime logs.

Across eight models, the strongest reaches 74.9% Turn Pass but completes only 37.3% of full five-turn episodes. We also introduce Adjacent Pass Retention (APR) to measure whether behavior that worked at one turn survives the next update. The results show that cross-turn maintenance—not just one-shot visual quality—is a central bottleneck for reliable generative UI.

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2608.29387
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.29387 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.29387 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.29387 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.