Despite rapid progress in autonomous web agents, human involvement remains essential for shaping preferences and correcting agent behavior as tasks unfold. However, current agentic systems lack a principled understanding of when and why humans intervene, often proceeding autonomously past critical decision points or requesting unnecessary confirmation. In this work, we introduce the task of modeling human intervention to support collaborative web task execution. We collect CowCorpus, a dataset of 400 real-user web navigation trajectories containing over 4,200 interleaved human and agent actions. We identify four distinct patterns of user interaction with agents -- hands-off supervision, hands-on oversight, collaborative task-solving, and full user takeover. Leveraging these insights, we train language models (LMs) to anticipate when users are likely to intervene based on their interaction styles, yielding a 61.4-63.4% improvement in intervention prediction accuracy over base LMs. Finally, we deploy these intervention-aware models in live web navigation agents and evaluate them in a user study, finding a 36.8% increase in user-rated agent usefulness. Together, our results show structured modeling of human intervention leads to more adaptive, collaborative agents.
As web agents close the gap with humans on benchmarks, one question arises: Do today's agents perform just as well on tomorrow's web? We introduce TimeWarp, a benchmark that emulates the evolving web. TimeWarp consists of three web environments, each with six UI versions spanning UI design, frontend code, and workflows from different eras of the internet. We pair TimeWarp with a set of complex, realistic tasks covering different forms of web navigation. Our experiments reveal that vision-based agents are vulnerable to changes, while text-based agents become brittle once fine-tuned on a single version. To address this, we propose TimeTraj, a new annotation method that uses plan distillation to collect trajectories across multiple versions. By training agents on teacher rollouts using our BC-variant, we achieve substantial performance gains: 20.4% to 37.7% for Qwen-3 4B and 0% to 27.0% for Llama-3.1 8B models. Our work helps study generalization across web designs and opens a new paradigm for collecting plans rather than trajectories to improve the robustness of web agents.
As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.
Benjamin Sturgeon, Daniel Samuelson, Jacob Haimes +1
Web agents require both high-level reasoning (for task decomposition) and low-level interactions (for page elements manipulation) to conduct different tasks. However, these knowledge types differ fundamentally: reasoning knowledge (e.g., booking a flight requires first searching for routes) is abstract and transferable across websites, while interaction knowledge (e.g., clicking the Search button at a specific coordinate on Site A) depends heavily on page-specific contexts. Existing methods store experiences uniformly. This creates a dilemma: abstract representations lose executability on concrete pages, while concrete representations fail to generalize across domains. This entanglement limits capability accumulation: on new websites, agents either fail to recognize reusable task logic due to surface-level differences or attempt infeasible actions from outdated page structures. To disentangle them, we propose DRIVE, a dual-level skill modeling framework separating historical experience into natural language reasoning skills, which capture transferable task logic, and programmatic interaction skills, grounding abstract actions to executable operations. A scene-aware coordination mechanism adaptively retrieves and invokes these dual-level skills based on task semantics. DRIVE also uses skill-level reflection to identify hierarchy-specific failure modes, enabling targeted skill library expansion and refinement. Experiments across five WebArena domains show DRIVE attains an average task success rate of 52.8%, exceeding the skill-free baseline by 7.3 percentage points. Further ablations show reasoning and interaction skills provide distinct, complementary benefits, supporting separation of transferable task logic from executable page-level operations.