Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Benchmark Hub

WebArena Ecosystem Benchmark Papers + Long Horizon

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this benchmark page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Simulation Env, Automatic Metrics. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: OSWorld. Common metric signal: cost. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Mar 22, 2026.

Papers: 14 Last published: Mar 22, 2026 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this page for benchmark-matched method comparisons and eval protocol selection. Quality band: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

14 / 14 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

8

Papers with explicit benchmark + metric + eval mode fields.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 14 papers explicitly name benchmark datasets in the sampled set.
  • 8 papers report at least one metric term in metadata extraction.
  • Start with the ranked shortlist below before reading all papers.

Primary action: Start with the top 2 benchmark-matched papers, then compare evaluation modes in the protocol matrix.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 28.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • simulation environments appears in 64.3% of papers in this hub.
  • OSWorld is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • 1 sampled papers report both human evaluation and LLM-as-judge, supporting direct agreement checks.
  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • OSWorld appears in 35.7% of hub papers (5/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • ALFWorld appears in 28.6% of hub papers (4/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 28.6% of hub papers (4/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 21.4% of hub papers (3/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Start Here (Benchmark-Matched First 6)

Ranked by protocol completeness so you can quickly find papers suitable for comparison studies.

Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Compare protocol ingredients quickly before deep-reading full papers.

Paper Eval Modes Human Feedback Metrics Quality Controls
AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

Mar 22, 2026

Human Eval, Llm As Judge Demonstrations Precision, Pass@1 Not reported
Let's Think in Two Steps: Mitigating Agreement Bias in MLLMs with Self-Grounded Verification

Jul 15, 2025

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Pairwise Preference Accuracy Not reported
ReDAct: Uncertainty-Aware Deferral for LLM Agents

Apr 8, 2026

Simulation Env Not reported Cost, Token cost Not reported
When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interruptible Agents in Long-Horizon Web Navigation

Apr 1, 2026

Simulation Env Critique Edit Not reported Not reported
Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

Jan 29, 2026

Simulation Env Not reported Pass@1, Cost Not reported
Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Latency Not reported
Towards Efficient Agents: A Co-Design of Inference Architecture and System

Dec 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Latency Not reported
Hybrid Deep Searcher: Scalable Parallel and Sequential Search Reasoning

Aug 26, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1 Not reported
CoAct-1: Computer-using Multi-Agent System with Coding Actions

Aug 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate Not reported
Watch and Learn: Learning to Use Computers from Online Videos

Oct 6, 2025

Not reported Demonstrations Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (28.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (57.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (57.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (100% benchmarks, 57.1% metrics).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (OSWorld vs ALFWorld) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and accuracy.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Simulation Env (9)
  • Automatic Metrics (5)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Human Feedback Mix

  • Demonstrations (2)
  • Critique Edit (1)
  • Pairwise Preference (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • OSWorld (5)
  • ALFWorld (4)
  • WebArena (4)
  • BrowseComp (3)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (4)
  • Accuracy (3)
  • Latency (2)
  • Pass@1 (2)

Top Papers On This Benchmark

  • AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

    Liang Ding · Mar 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Demonstrations Human EvalLlm As Judge

    LLM agents fail on the majority of real-world tasks -- GPT-4o succeeds on fewer than 15% of WebArena navigation tasks and below 55% pass@1 on ToolBench (Zhou et al., 2024; Qin et al., 2024) -- yet every failed trajectory is routinely…

  • Let's Think in Two Steps: Mitigating Agreement Bias in MLLMs with Self-Grounded Verification

    Moises Andrade, Joonhyuk Cha, Brandon Ho, Vriksha Srihari, Karmesh Yadav · Jul 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic MetricsSimulation Env

    We evaluate MLLM verifiers across web navigation, computer use, and robotics, spanning 13+ models, 28+ designs, and thousands of trajectories from diverse agents.

  • When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interruptible Agents in Long-Horizon Web Navigation

    Henry Peng Zou, Chunyu Miao, Wei-Chieh Huang, Yankai Chen, Yue Zhou · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Critique Edit Simulation Env

    As LLM agents transition from short, static problem solving to executing complex, long-horizon tasks in dynamic environments, the ability to handle user interruptions, such as adding requirement or revising goals, during mid-task execution…

  • ReDAct: Uncertainty-Aware Deferral for LLM Agents

    Dzianis Piatrashyn, Nikita Kotelevskii, Kirill Grishchenkov, Nikita Glazkov, Ivan Nasonov · Apr 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env

    Recently, LLM-based agents have become increasingly popular across many applications, including complex sequential decision-making problems.

  • Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

    Xiang Li, Ning Yan, Masood Mortazavi · Jan 29, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env

    We propose GiG, a novel planning framework that structures embodied agents' memory using a Graph-in-Graph architecture.

  • Watch and Learn: Learning to Use Computers from Online Videos

    Chan Hee Song, Yiwen Song, Palash Goyal, Yu Su, Oriana Riva · Oct 6, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Demonstrations

    Computer-using agents (CUAs) must plan task workflows across diverse and evolving applications, yet progress is limited by the lack of large-scale, high-quality training data.

  • Hierarchy-of-Groups Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks

    Shuo He, Lang Feng, Qi Wei, Xin Cheng, Lei Feng · Feb 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env

    Group-based reinforcement learning (RL), such as GRPO, has advanced the capabilities of large language models on long-horizon agentic tasks.

  • SELAUR: Self Evolving LLM Agent via Uncertainty-aware Rewards

    Dengjia Zhang, Xiaoou Liu, Lu Cheng, Yaqing Wang, Kenton Murray · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env

    Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as multi-step decision-making agents, where effective reward design is essential for guiding learning.

  • Mobile-Agent-v3.5: Multi-platform Fundamental GUI Agents

    Haiyang Xu, Xi Zhang, Haowei Liu, Junyang Wang, Zhaozai Zhu · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env

    The paper introduces GUI-Owl-1.5, the latest native GUI agent model that features instruct/thinking variants in multiple sizes (2B/4B/8B/32B/235B) and supports a range of platforms (desktop, mobile, browser, and more) to enable cloud-edge…

  • R-WoM: Retrieval-augmented World Model For Computer-use Agents

    Kai Mei, Jiang Guo, Shuaichen Chang, Mingwen Dong, Dongkyu Lee · Oct 13, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env

    Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as world models to enhance agent decision-making in digital environments by simulating future states and predicting action outcomes, potentially eliminating costly trial-and-error exploration.

  • Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

    Qianben Chen, Tianrui Qin, King Zhu, Qiexiang Wang, Chengjun Yu · Feb 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics

    Recent deep research agents primarily improve performance by scaling reasoning depth, but this leads to high inference cost and latency in search-intensive scenarios.

  • Towards Efficient Agents: A Co-Design of Inference Architecture and System

    Weizhe Lin, Hui-Ling Zhen, Shuai Yang, Xian Wang, Renxi Liu · Dec 20, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics

    The rapid development of large language model (LLM)-based agents has unlocked new possibilities for autonomous multi-turn reasoning and tool-augmented decision-making.

  • Hybrid Deep Searcher: Scalable Parallel and Sequential Search Reasoning

    Dayoon Ko, Jihyuk Kim, Haeju Park, Sohyeon Kim, Dahyun Lee · Aug 26, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics

    Large reasoning models (LRMs) combined with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have enabled deep research agents capable of multi-step reasoning with external knowledge retrieval.

  • CoAct-1: Computer-using Multi-Agent System with Coding Actions

    Linxin Song, Yutong Dai, Viraj Prabhu, Jieyu Zhang, Taiwei Shi · Aug 5, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics

    In this work, we introduce a more robust and flexible paradigm: enabling agents to use coding as a enhanced action.

Related Benchmark Hubs

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.