WebRetriever is introduced, a large-scale benchmark encompassing 800 websites and 1,550 tasks across diverse domains, including consumer, professional, and enterprise sectors, with comprehensive coverage of user intent patterns, and NavEval (Navigation Evaluation), a novel LLM-as-Judge framework that leverages rich interaction context beyond visual screenshots.
Abstract
As web agents increasingly demonstrate capabilities in automated task execution, the development of robust evaluation frameworks for assessing their navigation and task completion performance has emerged as a critical research priority. However, existing benchmarks exhibit fundamental limitations. First, they suffer from insufficient scale and limited domain diversity, constraining comprehensive evaluation of cross-domain generalization. Second, prevailing LLM-as-Judge evaluation methodologies inadequately capture fine-grained interaction semantics, particularly regarding precise query formulation and filtering operations. Third, current benchmarks predominantly emphasize navigation success metrics while neglecting critical requirements for real-world deployment scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce WebRetriever, a large-scale benchmark encompassing 800 websites and 1,550 tasks across diverse domains, including consumer, professional, and enterprise sectors, with comprehensive coverage of user intent patterns. We propose NavEval (Navigation Evaluation), a novel LLM-as-Judge framework that leverages rich interaction context beyond visual screenshots, achieving state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment across multiple evaluation datasets. Furthermore, we establish three complementary evaluation protocols that collectively provide holistic assessment of web agent capabilities: navigation proficiency, knowledge-assisted interaction, and end-to-end task completion with information extraction. Extensive experimental analysis reveals substantial performance disparities across evaluation protocols, demonstrating that navigation success alone is an insufficient predictor of real-world application effectiveness. WebRetriever delivers fine-grained diagnostic insights into agent capabilities and establishes a rigorous foundation for advancing web agent research and development.
CAP is introduced, a scalable benchmark for evaluating browser agents on cross-site, human-like web tasks that require non-trivial UI interactions and visual understanding and a decomposition-and-recomposition pipeline that first abstracts each website into a structured site card capturing user-facing functions, complex execution operations, and perceptual requirements, and then recomposes these components into realistic cross-site workflows.
This paper proposes TAPE (Trajectory Alignment and exPerience pool Evolution), a novel self-evolving fine-tuning framework designed to enhance the generalization and robustness of web search agents without requiring large-scale human annotation.
Minjae Rhee, Jitong Zou, Tianjun Mo et al.· IEEE Access· 3 citations
As large language models evolve from question-answering systems into general-purpose agents, evaluation must move beyond static answer correctness to assess multimodal perception, multi-step execution, tool use, and artifact delivery. However, existing benchmarks are often tied to specific task types, execution environments, or scoring protocols, limiting their comparability, interpretability, and reliability for deployment decisions. We introduce DAREBench (Deployment-Aware and Reliable Evaluation of Models as Agents), a benchmark designed to capture workload variation and support reliable agent evaluation. Built on a shared OpenClaw execution environment, DAREBench organizes 233 tasks selected and adapted from 22 source benchmarks into a $2\times3$ workload matrix defined by input modality and execution form, and evaluates them under a unified contract-based protocol with evidence-based score auditing. We evaluate 23 commercial API models and 12 locally deployed open-weight models over 7,587 model--task runs, reporting accuracy and token consumption alongside reference costs for API models. Results show that no single model dominates all workload groups, text and multimodal tasks exhibit distinct accuracy--cost trade-offs, and local open-weight models are competitive in several groups but still trail frontier commercial models overall. These findings suggest that agent deployment and model selection should consider workload profiles, deployment mode, and accuracy--cost trade-offs rather than rely on a single aggregate score.
Yu Liu, Zhi-Lin Liu, Zhi-Wei Yang et al.· 0 citations
Comprehensively evaluating AI agents across interactive environments is difficult due to fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules. Unfortunately, existing efforts to unify these evaluations are limited in scale and domain, making costly reruns necessary and leaving available data incomparable. We introduce MESSIER, a unified corpus of 957,611 records spanning 30 benchmarks, 745 agents, 11,891 tasks, and 74,263 verifiers. MESSIER combines public evaluation results with new runs on six underrepresented professional and scientific benchmarks, standardizing their heterogeneous components into a common schema. Using this corpus, we show that frontier progress is uneven across benchmark groups, with function-calling evaluations largely saturated, programming improving fastest, and enterprise workflows remaining most challenging. Counterfactual rescoring further shows that strict all-pass scoring in multi-verifier tasks can alter agent rankings. Finally, we derive capability scores from our corpus that correlate with Epoch's Evaluation Capability Index rankings at Spearman \r{ho} = 0.84. The scores can also be estimated for subsets defined by domain, occupation, action space, or verifier type. In essence, MESSIER is a reusable resource for studying agent performance at scale, and a basis for designing better evaluations.
Stefan Krsteski, Charlotte Meyer, Guillaume Allègre et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This work systematically study AI products with demonstrated adoption, together with their product workflows and users, to identify real-world tasks for which AI has established practical demand across diverse professional domains and establishes StartupBench as an empirical measure of progress toward E2E completions of real-world user tasks.
ClawTrack is presented, a dual-assessment benchmark that simultaneously measures what an agent achieves (Task Score) and how it achieves it (Process Score) and finds that process scores effectively attribute success and failure to specific reasoning dimensions, filtering lucky passes invisible to outcome-only evaluation.
Xingjian Wu, Xuhan Zhu, Xing-Chen Liu et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
