Good Papers

Auditing Web Agent Evaluation on WebArena-Lite: Human Review of Outcomes and Trajectories

Human audit of 165 WebArena-Lite tasks recovers 5.45, 8.49% evaluator-missed successes, reveals trajectory errors like looping, and shows guide text and MASM improve results.

Chengguang Gan, Zimeng He, Yoshihiro Tsujii, Ken-ichiro Kobayashi, Hiroki Itoh, Kotaro Funakoshi

Published Oct 1, 2026arXiv ↗

88%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel15/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 9/10
strict 1/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said
Panel consensus
Human review of 165 WebArena-Lite tasks recovers 5, 8 points of evaluator error and exposes masked trajectory progress, though its narrow scale and missing MASM implementation leave final-score scalability unresolved.

Abstract

Web agents are an important application of large language models, yet their evaluation often depends on rule based or language model evaluators that inspect only the final outcome. Human verification of task completion and detailed analysis of failed trajectories remain limited. We audit all 165 WebArena Lite tasks under six evaluation conditions built from GPT 5.5 and an untrained Qwen3.5 9B model. The audit retains the original score, corrects false negatives from the automatic evaluator, identifies the first consequential error, and examines progress across the trajectory. We also study a Memory and Analysis Support Mechanism (MASM), which maintains explicit execution state, and Guide Text, which provides task relevant procedural guidance. Across four GPT 5.5 settings, human review recovers 5.45 to 8.49 percentage points of success missed by the evaluator. With a 25 step budget, Guide Text raises corrected success with MASM from 34.55% to 38.18%. On the untrained Qwen3.5 9B model, MASM raises the evaluator score from 13.90% to 18.80%. Review of 102 failed GPT 5.5 trajectories reveals frequent scrolling loops, unfinished exploration, premature answers, invalid actions, and incomplete form workflows. Step level evidence further shows that substantial early progress can coexist with a final failure. These results show why final scores alone provide an incomplete account of web agent behavior and motivate human grounded, trajectory aware verification.