Gonzalo Gonzalez-Pumariega, Saaket Agashe, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, Xin Eric Wang
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Computer-use agents have rapidly improved on real-world tasks such as web navigation, desktop automation, and software interaction, in some cases surpassing human performance. Yet even when the task and model are unchanged, an agent that succeeds once may fail on a repeated execution of the same task. This raises a fundamental question: if an agent can succeed at a task once, what prevents it from doing so reliably? ...
In this work, we study the sources of unreliability in computer-use agents through three factors: stochasticity during execution, ambiguity in task specification, and variability in agent behavior. We analyze these factors on OSWorld using repeated executions of the same task together with paired statistical tests that capture task-level changes across settings. Our analysis shows that reliability depends on both how tasks are specified and how agent behavior varies across executions. These findings suggest the need to evaluate agents under repeated execution, to allow agents to resolve task ambiguity through interaction, and to favor strategies that remain stable across runs.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic tool use | Qwen (S3) | Pass^1 | 0.329 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Agentic tool use | GPT-5 (S3) | 𝒃 − 𝒄 b-c | 15 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Agentic tool use | Claude | Pass^1 | 0.702 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Computer-use agents have rapidly improved on real-world tasks such as web navigation, desktop automation, and software interaction, in some cases surpassing human performance.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Partial overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.