Falsifiable Commitment Planning for Self-Correcting Web Agents

Despite recent advances, LLM-based web agents still struggle with limited exploration, omission of critical steps, and sensitivity to task constraints. Prior work suggests that many of these failures stem from weaknesses in planning, yet the impact of alternative natural language plan representation remains unexplored. To address this, we introduce PlanAhead, a static planner-executor framework that evaluates the impact of plan representation in agent performance. We first automatically categorize WebArena tasks into 3 difficulty levels, enabling consistent difficulty grading without human annotation. Then we systematically evaluate 4 different plan representations on the tasks categorized as hard: sequential subgoals, narrative, pseudocode, and checklist; across different families of multimodal LLM powered agents (OpenAI, Alibaba, and Google). To account for stochastic variability, we introduce two novel evaluation metrics: Achievement Rate (AR) and Solved-Task Consistency (STC). Our results show that both, the plan formulation and the underlying LLM generating the plan, significantly influence web-agent robustness and task success.

ReAct has become the default architecture across LLM agents, and many existing web agents follow this paradigm. We argue that it is the wrong default for web agents. Instead, web agents should default to plan-then-execute: commit to a task-specific program before observing runtime web content, then execute it. The reason is that web content mixes inputs from many parties. An e-commerce product page may combine a seller's listing, customer reviews and sponsored advertisements. Under ReAct, all of this content flows into the model when deciding on the next action, creating a direct path for prompt injections to steer the agent's control flow. Plan-then-execute changes this boundary: untrusted data may influence values or branches inside a predefined execution graph, but it cannot redefine the user task or cause the model to synthesize new actions at runtime. We analyze WebArena, a popular web agent benchmark, and find that all tasks are compatible with plan-then-execute, while 80% can be completed with a purely programmatic plan, without any runtime LLM subroutine. We identify the main barrier to adopting plan-then-execute on the web: For it to work well, tools must map cleanly to semantic actions, with effects known before execution, so agents have enough information to plan. The web does not naturally expose that interface. Browser tools such as click, type, and scroll have page-dependent meanings. Planning at this layer is near-sighted: the agent can only see actions on the current page, and later actions appear only after it acts. Closing this gap requires typed interfaces that turn website interactions from clicks and keystrokes to task-level operations. This is an infrastructure problem, not a modeling problem. Web tasks do not need reactivity by default; they need typed, complete, auditable website APIs.

Long-horizon web agents often fail in ways hidden by final-answer evaluation: they may visit useful pages, produce a well-formed answer, and terminate confidently while still missing fields, over-including unsupported items, or relying on stale evidence. We study these failures with Parallel WebBench, a parallel web-exploration benchmark containing 1,679 verified records: 350 manually curated parallel tasks and 1,329 reconstructed records with verified URL-based trajectories. We train WebExplorer-style agents with GRPO under human-only, balanced human-synthetic, and synthetic-heavy data mixtures. At 16k context and 16 interaction rounds, the best GRPO model improves completion over WebExplorer-8B from 50.7% to 96.0% and GPT-4.1-mini-judged element-wise F1 from 0.2489 to 0.4529, but binary accuracy remains far below completion. Trace-level analysis identifies three persistent failure modes: context-bound search loops, premature termination on partial answers, and synthesis collapse after relevant evidence has already been retrieved. These results show that synthetic-data GRPO reduces abstention and improves partial correctness, but leaves a completion-correctness gap that requires evidence-grounded coverage and synthesis diagnostics.