ICAE-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents as Interactive Project Builders

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21217v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:31:38 GMT
• Title: ICAE-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents as Interactive Project Builders
• Abstract summary: We introduce ICAE-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents under interactive project-building settings.<n>The basic idea is to start from a fuzzy product requirement, simulating the dynamic paradigm with an automated User Agent.<n>ICAE-Bench uses standardized black-box tests together with multi-dimensional diagnostics, including functional correctness, semantic and API similarity, structural fidelity, design quality, and interaction quality.
• Score: 26.859032352714276
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The recent emergence of vibe-coding workflows is changing what coding agents are expected to do. Instead of merely completing code under fully specified instructions, agents are increasingly expected to transform incomplete product intent into working software by combining various abilities including planning, requirement clarification, tool use, debugging, and repository-level construction. Yet existing benchmarks have not fully caught up with this shift, evaluating agents on static, fully specified tasks. In this paper, we introduce ICAE-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents under interactive project-building settings. The basic idea is to start from a fuzzy product requirement, simulating the dynamic paradigm with an automated User Agent. To make this setting both realistic and evaluable, ICAE-Bench introduces three key designs. First, to avoid the ambiguity of unconstrained fuzzy requirements, each task derives ambiguity from a precise real open-source repository with executable behavior. Second, to ensure high-quality and reproducible user simulation, ICAE-Bench grounds interaction through User Agent Data, allowing the User Agent to reveal hidden constraints without inventing new requirements or leaking implementation artifacts. Third, to evaluate open-ended repositories fairly, ICAE-Bench uses standardized black-box tests together with multi-dimensional diagnostics, including functional correctness, semantic and API similarity, structural fidelity, design quality, and interaction quality.

Related papers

• DuMateBench: Evaluating Autonomous Agents in Complex Real-World Workflows [69.12339622053588]
  We introduce DuMateBench, a real-session benchmark reconstructed from anonymized and privacy-screened user sessions.<n>The resulting benchmark comprises 200 tasks spanning 8 broad scenarios and 17 fine-grained capability categories.<n>We execute these tasks in isolated Docker containers injected with three forms of real-world environmental complexity: Insufficient, Unstable, and Noisy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T02:36:23Z)
• From Profiling to Synthesis: Benchmarking Implicit Behavioral Alignment in Personalized LLM Agents [56.187590188698955]
  Large Language Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful.<n>Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles.<n>We introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories.<n>We propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T12:52:04Z)
• SWE-INTERACT: Reimagining SWE Benchmarks as User-Driven Long-Horizon Coding Sessions [3.67653051806469]
  SWE-Interact places agents in a realistic developer workflow.<n>It starts with vague or incomplete instructions, progressively reveals requirements.<n>It provides targeted feedback, revisions, and new constraints until the full task goal has been handed off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T17:17:45Z)
• VitaBench 2.0: Evaluating Personalized and Proactive Agents in Long-Term User Interactions [63.13827503828231]
  We introduce VitaBench 2.0, a benchmark for evaluating personalized and proactive agent behavior in long-term user interactions.<n>Results show that real-world personalization remains highly challenging even for state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T15:07:38Z)
• Code as Agent Harness [107.31925305395957]
  In emerging agentic systems, code is no longer only a target output.<n>Code increasingly serves as an operational substrate for agent reasoning, acting, environment modeling, and execution-based verification.<n>This survey provides a unified roadmap toward executable, verifiable, and stateful AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:03Z)
• Beyond Isolated Tasks: A Framework for Evaluating Coding Agents on Sequential Software Evolution [5.10403054516716]
  Existing datasets evaluate performance on isolated, single pull request (PR) tasks in a stateless manner.<n>We introduce an automated coding task generation framework, which helps generate our dataset SWE-STEPS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T13:44:40Z)
• AmbiBench: Benchmarking Mobile GUI Agents Beyond One-Shot Instructions in the Wild [30.138230316314534]
  We introduce AmbiBench, the first benchmark incorporating a taxonomy of instruction clarity to shift evaluation from unidirectional instruction to bidirectional intent alignment.<n>We construct a rigorous dataset of 240 ecologically valid tasks across 25 applications, subject to strict review protocols.<n>We also develop MUSE, an automated framework utilizing an MLLM-as-a-judge multi-agent architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T09:25:15Z)
• FeatureBench: Benchmarking Agentic Coding for Complex Feature Development [42.26354337364403]
  FeatureBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate agentic coding performance in end-to-end, feature-oriented software development.<n>It incorporates an execution-based evaluation protocol and a scalable test-driven method that automatically derives tasks from code repositories with minimal human effort.<n> Empirical evaluation reveals that the state-of-the-art agentic model, such as Claude 4.5 Opus, achieves a 74.4% resolved rate on SWE-bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T16:06:32Z)
• ProjDevBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents on End-to-End Project Development [49.63491095660809]
  ProjDevBench is an end-to-end benchmark that provides project requirements to coding agents and evaluates the resulting repositories.<n>We curate 20 programming problems across 8 categories, covering both concept-oriented tasks and real-world application scenarios.<n>Our evaluation reports an overall acceptance rate of 27.38%: agents handle basic functionality but struggle with complex system design, time optimization, and resource management.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T05:17:23Z)
• ABC-Bench: Benchmarking Agentic Backend Coding in Real-World Development [72.4729759618632]
  We introduce ABC-Bench, a benchmark to evaluate agentic backend coding within a realistic, executable workflow.<n>We curated 224 practical tasks spanning 8 languages and 19 frameworks from open-source repositories.<n>Our evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art models struggle to deliver reliable performance on these holistic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T08:23:52Z)
• Visual Document Understanding and Question Answering: A Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework with Test-Time Scaling [83.78874399606379]
  We propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling.<n>It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration.<n>It shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T12:52:09Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.