Good Papers

DiagEval: Trajectory-Conditioned Diagnosis for Reliable Software Evaluation with GUI Agents

DiagEval uses trajectory-conditioned diagnostic probes to disambiguate evaluator errors from software defects in GUI-agent evaluations, recovering over 45% of misattributed failures and improving accuracy substantially.

Sirui Hong, Liuzhijie, Tengfei Li, Wei Tao, Yifan Wu, Chenglin Wu

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 5 · Thu, Dec 10, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

91%
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 panel17/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 10/10
strict 2/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

Evaluating LLM-generated interactive software requires execution in addition to static analysis. The key difficulty is that correctness is a graph-level reachable property over latent UI state-transition graphs, whereas a GUI evaluator observes only a single execution trajectory. A failed rollout therefore rules out only one realized path, leaving failure attribution ambiguous between evaluator-side execution error and genuine software defect. We present DiagEval, a trajectory-conditioned diagnostic evaluation protocol for post-failure GUI-agent evaluation of interactive software. Rather than blindly retrying from scratch, DiagEval reuses the failed trajectory to choose targeted diagnostic probes and aggregates their outcomes into an internal attribution signal. The latent-graph view motivates the diagnostic problem; DiagEval does not reconstruct the graph or estimate calibrated posterior probabilities. We evaluate DiagEval on WebDevJudge-Unit and RealDevBench across multiple GUI-agent evaluators and LLM backbones. On false-negative cases, DiagEval recovers 45.6-62.1% of failures that were initially misattributed to software defects, outperforming retry-based baselines with 34.4-160.6% relative gains. On the full evaluation sets, this recovery improves accuracy from 69.9% to 78.3% on WebDevJudge-Unit and from 65.0% to 81.6% on RealDevBench. These results suggest that reliable GUI-agent evaluation requires not only stronger execution, but also active failure diagnosis to disambiguate evaluator-side errors from genuine software defects. Our code is available at https://github.com/scutGit/DiagEval.