CATTest - Pass/Not-Pass Precision: leaderboard

Coarse-grained pass/not-pass precision when a VLM testing agent judges whether each of 102 AI-generated web applications passes, under the CATJudge framework with a 250-turn budget at provider defaults (CATTest, arXiv 2609.00081v1, Table 1). Percent; higher is better. Recall alone rewards flagging failures liberally; the paper pairs it with precision.

Metric: Precision (%). Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Estimated already saturated. 17 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1Qwen 3.6 27B89.06#182
2GLM-5V Turbo86.79#172
3Claude Opus 4.686.59#67
4Claude Opus 4.786.05#51
5Seed 2.0 Pro85.37#122
6Qwen 3.5 Plus85.07#133
7Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite84.21#200
8GPT-5.583.95#33
9Gemini 3.1 Pro (Preview)83.33#64
10Kimi K2.683.33#113
11Gemini 3 Flash82.5#103
12Claude Sonnet 4.682.02#94
13Qwen 3.5 27B81.58#192
14Seed 2.0 Lite81.25#161
15GPT-5.4 Mini80.33#228

No result here: #3 Claude Opus 5.5, #6 GPT-6 Astra, #7 GPT-6.1 Sol.

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=cattest-pass-not-pass-precision · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-05.