arXiv subjects

Xiaoqiu Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Xiaoqiu Wang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

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

Coding agents are increasingly moving beyond text-based software tasks to reconstruct visual targets through code. This capability, visual coding, requires agents to translate their understanding of visual targets into executable code. Slides provide a natural testbed for this capability, combining rich visual structure with objects that can be programmatically created and edited. To measure this capability, we introduce PPTBench, a benchmark for reconstructing scientific flow diagrams as editable PowerPoint slides. PPTBench covers 500 scientific flow-diagram tasks across 10 presentation domains, drawn from real research papers, and is evaluated with a four-stage agentic judge covering artifact validity, process and connector fidelity, rendering quality, and visual fidelity. Evaluation of ten models across 36 model--harness--effort configurations shows a substantial gap in reliable visual coding: the best configuration achieves 77.34, while the median across configurations is 24.38. Fine-grained analysis shows that agents can generally produce valid slide files, but struggle to produce high-quality reconstructions that faithfully recover the semantics and visual structure of the target. Further analysis shows that increasing reasoning effort primarily improves hard-gate passage rather than mean detail quality on each configuration's passing tasks, while configurations with more inspection tend to achieve higher overall scores. PPTBench establishes a measurable testbed for studying visual coding and advancing agents toward more reliable visual creation.

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↗