Web agents are typically evaluated with goals fully specified before execution and fixed thereafter, whereas real users often revise their requirements during interaction. To study such interactions, we introduce DynaRev, a benchmark of 181 tasks to evaluate web agents under dynamic goal revision. DynaRev uses semantic milestones to deliver revisions at task-defined stages, covers additive revisions, unconditional overrides, and runtime-conditioned overrides, and evaluates correctness, responsiveness, and efficiency through trajectory-grounded evaluation. Five-model evaluations show that agents often satisfy only part of the task requirements, with performance varying across task sources, revision types, and models. Further analyses reveal varied milestone timing, mixed effects of dynamic delivery, and contrasting revision-handling outcomes, with gains from instruction rewriting while preserving browser state and losses from browser resets. DynaRev provides a testbed for studying how web agents adapt to evolving user goals. The code and data are available at https://github.com/zsq259/DynaRev.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Example dynamic goal revision task.
Figure 2: Overview of benchmark construction, milestone-triggered execution, and revision-aware evaluation.
Source
Type
Tasks
Avg. Cons.
Avg. Rounds
OM2W
Additive
37
4.76
2.59
Uncond.
39
4.56
2.92
Cond.
31
5.74
3.26
M2W2
Additive
39
9.69
2.97
Uncond.
23
10.04
4.22
Cond.
12
9.75
4.92
Table 1: Dataset statistics by source and revision type. Avg. Cons. and Avg. Rounds denote average constraint and instruction-round counts. Uncond. and Cond. denote unconditional and conditional overrides.
Correctness
Responsiveness
Efficiency
Model
Score ↑
Success ↑
MFFR ↑
WRA ↑
CE (Steps) ↑
CE (Tokens) ↑
Avg Steps ↓
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
0.698
43.1%
2.21
66.8%
0.482
0.637
43.0
GPT-6.1-Sol
0.598
28.2%
1.91
68.8%
0.477
0.554
24.9
Gemini-3.8-Flash
0.735
42.5%
2.28
69.4%
0.522
0.673
33.1
Qwen3.8-Flash
0.604
39.2%
2.09
68.4%
0.410
0.549
50.9
Claude-Opus-5-5
0.681
36.5%
2.16
68.3%
0.448
0.596
43.8
Table 2: Main results across all dynamic subsets.
OM2W
M2W2
Additive
Unconditional
Conditional
Additive
Unconditional
Conditional
Model
Score ↑
Steps ↓
Score ↑
Steps ↓
Score ↑
Steps ↓
Score ↑
Steps ↓
Score ↑
Steps ↓
Score ↑
Steps ↓
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
0.780
32.4
0.774
30.6
0.824
38.5
0.570
55.4
0.581
56.5
0.518
62.2
GPT-6.1-Sol
0.793
19.8
0.642
27.7
0.753
23.7
0.404
27.7
0.435
23.2
0.401
29.0
Gemini-3.8-Flash
0.795
29.3
0.759
26.2
0.898
30.8
0.606
38.6
0.647
40.9
0.642
40.5
Qwen3.8-Flash
0.804
33.7
0.739
37.1
0.727
39.2
0.394
67.4
0.419
74.3
0.275
80.0
Table 3: Performance breakdown by task source and revision type.
Figure 3: Task-level distribution of constraint satisfaction scores. Each point reports the proportion of tasks reaching the corresponding score threshold.
Figure 4: Cost–quality curves under action-step and token budgets.
Revision Satisfaction qi,k
Model
WRA =1
WRA =0
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
0.683
0.644
GPT-6.1-Sol
0.587
0.465
Gemini-3.8-Flash
0.720
0.696
Qwen3.8-Flash
0.609
0.577
Claude-Opus-5-5
0.677
0.628
Table 4: Revision-level analysis conditioned on WRA.
OM2W
M2W2
Model
Δ Score
Δ Steps
Δ Score
Δ Steps
DeepSeek
−0.025
+9.06
−0.035
+6.47
GPT
+0.079
−0.74
+0.122
+4.87
Gemini
−0.133
+12.54
+0.108
+7.53
Qwen
+0.161
+8.54
+0.115
−12.67
Claude
−0.107
+14.34
−0.169
+10.93
Table 5: Changes from static to dynamic additive delivery on paired tasks. Δ denotes dynamic minus static.
Figure 5: Representative failure cases under dynamic goal revision.
Strategy
Score ↑
Steps ↓
Tokens (k) ↓
Baseline
0.647
50.3
806.7
Rewrite
0.718
44.9
658.8
Clear
0.648
53.6
667.2
Clear + Rewrite
0.663
52.8
673.4
Reset
0.586
59.7
691.7
Reset + Rewrite
0.525
61.5
843.6
Table 6: Comparison of revision handling strategies. Rewrite consolidates instructions, Clear removes interaction history, and Reset resets the browser.
Figure 6: Relative revision-injection positions across tasks and agents, ordered by mean across agents.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Scenario distribution of retained seed tasks.
Model
Better
Worse
Unchanged
DeepSeek
8
9
13
GPT
15
9
6
Gemini
9
7
14
Qwen
11
3
16
Claude
5
14
11
All
48
42
60
Appendix
Table 7: Pairwise Score changes under dynamic delivery.
Model
≥ 0.1
≥ 0.2
≥ 0.3
≥ 0.4
≥ 0.5
≥ 0.6
≥ 0.7
≥ 0.8
≥ 0.9
≥ 1.0
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
81.8%
81.8%
79.6%
77.9%
76.2%
72.9%
68.0%
59.1%
45.9%
43.1%
GPT-6.1-Sol
86.7%
82.9%
74.6%
69.1%
64.6%
54.7%
49.7%
37.6%
28.7%
28.2%
Gemini-3.8-Flash
89.0%
87.3%
86.2%
81.8%
80.1%
78.5%
71.8%
56.4%
44.2%
42.5%
Qwen3.8-Flash
69.1%
69.1%
68.0%
67.4%
67.4%
64.1%
58.6%
51.4%
40.9%
39.2%
Claude-Opus-5-5
81.2%
80.7%
79.6%
79.0%
77.9%
74.0%
65.7%
53.0%
39.8%
36.5%
Appendix
Table 8: Task-level distribution of constraint satisfaction scores. Each column reports the percentage of tasks reaching the corresponding score threshold.
OM2W
M2W2
Score
Steps
Score
Steps
Model
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
DeepSeek
0.909
0.884
20.67
29.73
0.616
0.581
45.00
51.47
GPT
0.791
0.870
18.07
17.33
0.307
0.429
26.20
31.07
Gemini
0.953
0.820
16.13
28.67
0.534
0.642
30.47
38.00
Qwen
0.822
0.983
25.13
33.67
0.337
0.452
74.80
62.13
Appendix
Table 9: Full results for static and dynamic additive delivery on paired tasks.
Annotator
Early
Aligned
Late
Annotator 1
0.0%
90.0%
10.0%
Annotator 2
10.0%
76.7%
13.3%
Appendix
Table 10: Human judgments of milestone-trigger timing.
Judgment
Agreement
Cohen’s κ
Q1: Trigger state
90.0%
0.000
Q2: Previous state
90.0%
0.516
Three-way label
83.3%
0.438
Appendix
Table 11: Agreement between the two human annotators.
Web agent benchmarks test how reliably AI agents browse, navigate, and act on websites, including under long-horizon, ambiguous, and adversarial conditions.
Web agents act through long interaction sequences, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only terminal success, discarding all process information and offering little guidance on improvement. In this work, we conduct a process-level analysis of web agents. We introduce WebStep, a benchmark of 1,800 task instances with controlled difficulty and automatic semantic state tracking. Each website exposes a deterministic semantic MDP alongside the GUI: the agent operates on the interface, while the environment records high-level states and transitions in the background, enabling fine-grained analysis without manual annotation. Based on the semantic trajectory, we first show that process metrics reveal differences invisible to outcome evaluation: three agents whose success rates cluster within 34-37% diverge in exploration reach versus execution accuracy. Then, decomposing by skill characterizes the nature of these differences, exposing opposite per-skill rankings hidden within the same website: e.g., on Q&A, Claude CUA outperforms OpenAI CUA by 30% on navigation actions yet underperforms it by 6.7% on inspection, pinpointing a concrete skill to improve even within a domain. Bifurcation analysis further localizes the decisive error that loses the task and shows that this error is agent-specific rather than shared. Finally, these differences widen as tasks grow harder: success rate is similar on easy tasks but separates sharply as exploration becomes more demanding. Our process-level analysis opens a new avenue in web agent evaluation, providing fine-grained and actionable insight into where and how each agent should be improved. Project page: https://jiwanchung.github.io/webstep
We present WebPageBench, an open framework for evaluating web agents in which every task is verified from the interface's own event log. Six instrumented mock sites with brand identifiers removed (a marketplace, a bookstore, a grocery service, rail ticketing, hotel search and a document cabinet) emit typed events with parameters as a user or an agent acts. A task declares the events it requires, and success is decided by matching them, with no judge model and no scraping of rendered pages. The same instrumentation supports controlled UI variation: one configuration switch re-renders a task through a different implementation of a single control while the prompt and the success conditions stay completely identical, so sensitivity to interface form can be measured under a fixed task specification. The WebPageBench release consists of three components: 152 tasks, divided into 65 canonical scenarios and 87 control variants across light/dark UI-modes; a common runner evaluated with six browser/DOM harness configurations and five screenshot-only GUI-agent families; and a public leaderboard of 24 model-harness pairs. On the public 152-task leaderboard the gap between what agents declare finished and what the log confirms reaches 41 points (one configuration declares every task finished and satisfies the conditions on 59%).
Anton Emelyanov, Maria Tikhonova, Zaven Martirosian +2
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.