Code Aesthetics with Agentic Reward Feedback
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become valuable assistants for developers in code-related tasks. While LLMs excel at traditional programming tasks such as code generation and bug fixing, they struggle with visually-oriented coding tasks, often producing suboptimal aesthetics. In this paper, we introduce a new pipeline to enhance the aesthetic quality of LLM-generated code. We first construct AesCode-358K, a large-scale instruction-tuning dataset focused on code aesthetics. Next, we propose agentic reward feedback, a multi-agent system that evaluates executability, static aesthetics, and interactive aesthetics. Building on this, we develop GRPO-AR, which integrates these signals into the GRPO algorithm for joint optimization of functionality and code aesthetics. Finally, we develop OpenDesign, a benchmark for assessing code aesthetics. Experimental results show that combining supervised fine-tuning on AesCode-358K with reinforcement learning using agentic reward feedback significantly improves performance on OpenDesign and also enhances results on existing benchmarks such as PandasPlotBench. Notably, our AesCoder-4B surpasses GPT-4o and GPT-4.1, and achieves performance comparable to large open-source models with 480B-685B parameters, underscoring the effectiveness of our approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evaluating LLM-generated frontend code is an active area of research and is complicated by the fact that evaluating frontend code involves analyzing both code-level details and visual aesthetics.
“Evaluating LLM-generated frontend code is an active area of research (Xiao et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025b) and is complicated by the fact that evaluating frontend code involves analyzing both code level details and visual aesthetics.”
From Vision-Guided Iterative Refinement for Frontend Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as Xiao et al., 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vision-Guided Iterative Refinement for Frontend Code Generation
Sansford, H., Law, D. H. C., Liu, W., Tripathi, A., Agarwal, N., & Burg, G. J. J. V. D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05839
“Evaluating LLM-generated frontend code is an active area of research (Xiao et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025b) and is complicated by the fact that evaluating frontend code involves analyzing both code level details and visual aesthetics.”
- Authors
- Xiao, B., Jiang, L., Huang, S., Lv, T., Huang, Y., Wu, X., Cui, L., & Wei, F.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Peking University (CN)
- Microsoft Research Asia (China) (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2510.23272
- OpenAlex
- W7101923468
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- LLM-generated code, multi-agent evaluation, code visualization, static code analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review