Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

WebSuite: Systematically Evaluating Why Web Agents Fail

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 2406.01623 v1 pith:7XZPVRFY submitted 2024-06-01 cs.SE cs.AI

WebSuite: Systematically Evaluating Why Web Agents Fail

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords agentsagentbenchmarkfailuretasktaskswebsuiteaction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We describe WebSuite, the first diagnostic benchmark for generalist web agents, designed to systematically evaluate why agents fail. Advances in AI have led to the rise of numerous web agents that autonomously operate a browser to complete tasks. However, most existing benchmarks focus on strictly measuring whether an agent can or cannot complete a task, without giving insight on why. In this paper, we 1) develop a taxonomy of web actions to facilitate identifying common failure patterns, and 2) create an extensible benchmark suite to assess agents' performance on our taxonomized actions. This benchmark suite consists of both individual tasks, such as clicking a button, and end-to-end tasks, such as adding an item to a cart, and is designed such that any failure of a task can be attributed directly to a failure of a specific web action. We evaluate two popular generalist web agents, one text-based and one multimodal, and identify unique weaknesses for each agent. Because WebSuite can disaggregate task failures into specific action failures, this enables granular identification of which UX flows an individual agent has trouble with and immediately highlights promising avenues for improvement. These findings highlight the need for more focused benchmarking on where web agents go wrong to effectively improve agents beyond their weaker performance today.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Inference-Time Scaling of Verification: Self-Evolving Deep Research Agents via Test-Time Rubric-Guided Verification

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    DeepVerifier enables self-evolving deep research agents via rubric-guided verification at test time, delivering 8-11% accuracy gains on GAIA and XBench-DeepSearch subsets.

  2. Uncertainty Quantification for Computer-Use Agents: A Benchmark across Vision-Language Models and GUI Grounding Datasets

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Argus benchmark shows UQ method rankings for GUI grounding agents are stable within models across datasets but degrade across model classes and to closed-source vendors.

  3. Magentic-One: A Generalist Multi-Agent System for Solving Complex Tasks

    cs.AI 2024-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Magentic-One is a modular multi-agent system that matches state-of-the-art performance on GAIA, AssistantBench, and WebArena using an orchestrator-led team of specialized agents.