Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Understanding the Weakness of Large Language Model Agents within a Complex Android Environment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.06596 v1 pith:HG65XCPM submitted 2024-02-09 cs.AI cs.HCcs.SE

classification cs.AIcs.HCcs.SE
keywords agentsandroidarenaunderstandingbenchmarkenvironmentaccurateaddresschallenges
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have empowered intelligent agents to execute intricate tasks within domain-specific software such as browsers and games. However, when applied to general-purpose software systems like operating systems, LLM agents face three primary challenges. Firstly, the action space is vast and dynamic, posing difficulties for LLM agents to maintain an up-to-date understanding and deliver accurate responses. Secondly, real-world tasks often require inter-application cooperation}, demanding farsighted planning from LLM agents. Thirdly, agents need to identify optimal solutions aligning with user constraints, such as security concerns and preferences. These challenges motivate AndroidArena, an environment and benchmark designed to evaluate LLM agents on a modern operating system. To address high-cost of manpower, we design a scalable and semi-automated method to construct the benchmark. In the task evaluation, AndroidArena incorporates accurate and adaptive metrics to address the issue of non-unique solutions. Our findings reveal that even state-of-the-art LLM agents struggle in cross-APP scenarios and adhering to specific constraints. Additionally, we identify a lack of four key capabilities, i.e., understanding, reasoning, exploration, and reflection, as primary reasons for the failure of LLM agents. Furthermore, we provide empirical analysis on the failure of reflection, and improve the success rate by 27% with our proposed exploration strategy. This work is the first to present valuable insights in understanding fine-grained weakness of LLM agents, and offers a path forward for future research in this area. Environment, benchmark, and evaluation code for AndroidArena are released at https://github.com/AndroidArenaAgent/AndroidArena.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MobiBench: Multi-Branch, Modular Benchmark for Mobile GUI Agents

    cs.AI 2025-12 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    MobiBench is the first modular multi-path offline benchmark for mobile GUI agents, achieving 94.72% agreement with human evaluators while allowing component-level analysis.

  2. Profile-Then-Reason: Bounded Semantic Complexity for Tool-Augmented Language Agents

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    PTR framework profiles a workflow upfront then executes it deterministically with bounded verification and repair, limiting LM calls to 2-3 while outperforming ReAct in 16 of 24 tested configurations.

  3. MobiBench: Multi-Branch, Modular Benchmark for Mobile GUI Agents

    cs.AI 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MobiBench reaches near-human offline evaluation fidelity for mobile GUI agents by accepting any valid action at each step, and enables modular attribution of performance to agent components.

  4. MobiAgent: A Systematic Framework for Customizable Mobile Agents

    cs.MA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A full-stack mobile agent framework reports state-of-the-art task completion on its own DAG-based benchmark and 2-3x speedups from replaying recorded trajectories.

  5. Mobile GUI Agents under Real-world Threats: Are We There Yet?

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces an app-content instrumentation framework and benchmark showing that examined GUI agents suffer 42.0% and 36.1% average misleading rates from third-party content in dynamic and static tests respectively.

Pith tools