analiza aiqbench
This research systematically evaluates Large Language Models for assessing mobile UI quality, revealing specific failure modes like architectural over-commitment and attention misgrounding. By analyzing 15,000 screens against heuristic baselines, the study provides a critical taxonomy of where current models struggle with structured visual judgment rather than just semantic understanding. These findings are essential for developers seeking to deploy reliable AI agents in software engineering pipelines without relying on costly human annotation.
Seeing Without Understanding: Large Language Model Evaluation of Mobile User Interface Quality, Failure Taxonomy, and Architectural Explanation
arXiv:2609.05423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating mobile user interface quality at scale remains a persistent challenge in software engineering and human-computer interaction. Rule-based heuristic methods offer structural reliability but demand significant engineering effort, while human annotation does not scale to the volume of applications produced annually. Large language models present a promising alternative, yet their reliability for structured UI judgment has not been systematically examined, and the patterns behind their failures remain insufficiently characterized. This paper addresses both gaps. We begin with the complete RICO dataset of 66,261 real-world mobile application screens, from which we derive a refined evaluation corpus of 15,000 screens through a rigorous, literature-guided selection process. Each screen is assessed across seven criteria: structural JSON validity, minimum visible element count, clickable component presence, non-zero layout bounds, image integrity, and perceptual duplicate removal. Against this corpus, we apply a heuristic baseline built from severity-weighted usability signals, normalized layout metrics, and pixel-ratio complexity measures calibrated to real user sentiment. Multiple language models independently rate each screen across usability, layout quality, and visual complexity from structured JSON descriptions and raw screenshots. Dimension-level comparison against the heuristic uses agreement rates, Cohen's Kappa, and confidence calibration. Recurring divergence patterns are organized into a failure taxonomy and interpreted through transformer architectural signatures: MLE plausibility bias, attention misgrounding, and autoregressive over-commitment.
Abstract:Evaluating mobile user interface quality at scale remains a persistent challenge in software engineering and human-computer interaction. Rule-based heuristic methods offer structural reliability but demand significant engineering effort, while human annotation does not scale to the volume of applications produced annually. Large language models present a promising alternative, yet their reliability for structured UI judgment has not been systematically examined, and the patterns behind their failures remain insufficiently characterized. This paper addresses both gaps. We begin with the complete RICO dataset of 66,261 real-world mobile application screens, from which we derive a refined evaluation corpus of 15,000 screens through a rigorous, literature-guided selection process. Each screen is assessed across seven criteria: structural JSON validity, minimum visible element count, clickable component presence, non-zero layout bounds, image integrity, and perceptual duplicate removal. Against this corpus, we apply a heuristic baseline built from severity-weighted usability signals, normalized layout metrics, and pixel-ratio complexity measures calibrated to real user sentiment. Multiple language models independently rate each screen across usability, layout quality, and visual complexity from structured JSON descriptions and raw screenshots. Dimension-level comparison against the heuristic uses agreement rates, Cohen's Kappa, and confidence calibration. Recurring divergence patterns are organized into a failure taxonomy and interpreted through transformer architectural signatures: MLE plausibility bias, attention misgrounding, and autoregressive over-commitment.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2609.05423 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2609.05423v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05423 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 311 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · 24 sept. 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · 21 mai 2026

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · 15 iul. 2026