Skip to content
← Back to explorer

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, Hanrong Zhang, Yaozu Wu, Liancheng Fang, Zhengyao Gu, Zhen Zhang, Kening Zheng, Fangxin Wang, Yi Nian, Shanghao Li, Wenzhe Fan, Langzhou He, Weizhi Zhang, Xue Liu, Philip S. Yu · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

High trust

Use this as a practical starting point for protocol research, then validate against the original paper.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

High

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment. However, existing benchmarks largely assume uninterrupted agent behavior or study interruptions only in short, unconstrained language tasks. In this paper, we present the first systematic study of interruptible agents in long-horizon, environmentally grounded web navigation tasks, where actions induce persistent state changes. We formalize three realistic interruption types, including addition, revision, and retraction, and introduce InterruptBench, a benchmark derived from WebArena-Lite that synthesizes high-quality interruption scenarios under strict semantic constraints. Using a unified interruption simulation framework, we evaluate six strong LLM backbones across single- and multi-turn interruption settings, analyzing both their effectiveness in adapting to updated intents and their efficiency in recovering from mid-task changes. Our results show that handling user interruptions effectively and efficiently during long-horizon agentic tasks remains challenging for powerful large-scale LLMs. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HenryPengZou/InterruptBench.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

High

Usefulness score

67/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 75%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Critique Edit

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

WebArena, Interruptbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We formalize three realistic interruption types, including addition, revision, and retraction, and introduce InterruptBench, a benchmark derived from WebArena-Lite that synthesizes high-quality interruption scenarios under strict semantic constraints."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Critique Edit
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Simulation Env
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon, Web Browsing
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: High
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

WebArenaInterruptbench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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 is becoming a core requirement for realistic deployment.
  • However, existing benchmarks largely assume uninterrupted agent behavior or study interruptions only in short, unconstrained language tasks.
  • In this paper, we present the first systematic study of interruptible agents in long-horizon, environmentally grounded web navigation tasks, where actions induce persistent state changes.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Simulation environment, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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…
  • In this paper, we present the first systematic study of interruptible agents in long-horizon, environmentally grounded web navigation tasks, where actions induce persistent state changes.
  • Using a unified interruption simulation framework, we evaluate six strong LLM backbones across single- and multi-turn interruption settings, analyzing both their effectiveness in adapting to updated intents and their efficiency in…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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…
  • In this paper, we present the first systematic study of interruptible agents in long-horizon, environmentally grounded web navigation tasks, where actions induce persistent state changes.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Critique Edit

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Simulation Env

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: WebArena, Interruptbench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.