Towards a Realistic Long-Term Benchmark for Open-Web Research Agents
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a new benchmark for evaluating open-web research agents.
- The benchmark aims to provide a realistic, long-term challenge that reflects the complexity of the real-world web.
- It focuses on agents' ability to effectively complete multi-step tasks and maintain coherence over longer interactions.
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a new benchmark for evaluating AI systems that interact with the open web. The goal is to create a more realistic and challenging test that better reflects the complexity of real-world web browsing and research tasks.
Current benchmarks for web-based AI often focus on narrow, single-step queries. In contrast, this new benchmark evaluates an agent's ability to complete multi-step tasks that require navigating and synthesizing information from multiple web pages. It also assesses the agent's capacity to maintain coherence and context over longer, multi-turn interactions, mirroring how humans actually use the web.
By designing a benchmark that more closely matches real-world web usage, the researchers aim to drive progress on building AI systems that can effectively assist humans with open-ended, long-term research and problem-solving on the web.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a new benchmark called OpenWebBench that is designed to evaluate open-domain web research agents. The benchmark consists of a set of multi-step tasks that require agents to navigate the web, gather relevant information, and provide a coherent, synthesized response.
The tasks are structured around realistic research scenarios, such as planning a trip, preparing for a job interview, or investigating a medical condition. Agents must complete a series of sub-tasks, such as finding specific information, making comparisons, and drawing conclusions, within a given time limit.
The benchmark also includes an assessment of the agent's ability to maintain context and coherence over longer, multi-turn interactions. This is designed to capture the real-world challenge of engaging in extended, open-ended dialogues on the web.
The researchers argue that this benchmark provides a more realistic and challenging evaluation of an agent's web research capabilities compared to existing benchmarks, which often focus on narrow, single-step queries. By designing a test that better reflects the complexity of real-world web usage, the aim is to drive progress in building AI systems that can truly assist humans with open-ended, long-term tasks on the open web.
Critical Analysis
The proposed OpenWebBench is a promising step towards creating more realistic benchmarks for open-domain web research agents. The focus on multi-step tasks and maintaining coherence over longer interactions aligns well with the challenges faced by humans when conducting research on the open web.
However, the paper acknowledges several potential limitations and areas for further research. For example, the benchmark may not fully capture the breadth and depth of information available on the web, and it may be challenging to design tasks that are sufficiently complex yet still measurable.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential biases in the web data used to construct the benchmark, which could lead to skewed or incomplete representations of certain topics or perspectives. Careful curation and evaluation of the web data used will be crucial to ensuring the benchmark is truly reflective of the open web.
Further research is also needed to explore how this benchmark can be used to drive progress in building AI systems that can effectively assist humans with open-ended, long-term research tasks on the web. Evaluating the performance of large language models on this benchmark and identifying key areas for improvement will be an important next step.
Conclusion
The OpenWebBench proposed in this paper represents an important step towards creating more realistic and challenging benchmarks for open-domain web research agents. By focusing on multi-step tasks and maintaining coherence over longer interactions, the benchmark aims to better reflect the complexity of real-world web usage, which could drive progress in building AI systems that can truly assist humans with open-ended, long-term research and problem-solving on the open web.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
New!Towards a Realistic Long-Term Benchmark for Open-Web Research Agents
Peter Muhlbacher, Nikos I. Bosse, Lawrence Phillips
We present initial results of a forthcoming benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on white-collar tasks of economic value. We evaluate eight realistic and ``messy'' tasks that are routine in finance and consulting, drawn from real-world cases from our customers. We lay the groundwork for an LLM agent evaluation suite where good performance directly corresponds to a large economic and societal impact. This fills a gap in existing benchmarks with tasks like ``order a pizza to the following address'' that do not constitute real-human work of economic value. Our evaluations assign credit to agents for partially solving tasks. By doing that, this initial evaluation, and the forthcoming benchmark, allow us to more accurately extrapolate performance of LLM-based agents on economically valuable tasks. We built and tested several architectures with GPT-4o, Claude-3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 (405b), and GPT-4o-mini, ensuring that failure to solve a task was due to failures of reasoning and planning, rather than due to common failures like e.g. the inability to parse a website. On average, LLM agents powered by Claude-3.5 Sonnet substantially outperformed agents using GPT-4o, with agents based on Llama 3.1 (405b) and GPT-4o-mini lagging noticeably behind. Across LLMs, a ReAct architecture with the ability to delegate subtasks to subagents performed best. In addition to quantitative evaluations, we qualitatively assessed the performance of the LLM agents by inspecting their traces and reflecting on their observations.
Read more9/24/2024
0
AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?
Ori Yoran, Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Chaitanya Malaviya, Ben Bogin, Ofir Press, Jonathan Berant
Language agents, built on top of language models (LMs), are systems that can interact with complex environments, such as the open web. In this work, we examine whether such agents can perform realistic and time-consuming tasks on the web, e.g., monitoring real-estate markets or locating relevant nearby businesses. We introduce AssistantBench, a challenging new benchmark consisting of 214 realistic tasks that can be automatically evaluated, covering different scenarios and domains. We find that AssistantBench exposes the limitations of current systems, including language models and retrieval-augmented language models, as no model reaches an accuracy of more than 25 points. While closed-book LMs perform well, they exhibit low precision since they tend to hallucinate facts. State-of-the-art web agents reach a score of near zero. Additionally, we introduce SeePlanAct (SPA), a new web agent that significantly outperforms previous agents, and an ensemble of SPA and closed-book models reaches the best overall performance. Moreover, we analyze failures of current systems and highlight that web navigation remains a major challenge.
Read more7/23/2024
0
On the Benchmarking of LLMs for Open-Domain Dialogue Evaluation
John Mendonc{c}a, Alon Lavie, Isabel Trancoso
Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable capabilities in various Natural Language Processing tasks. For automatic open-domain dialogue evaluation in particular, LLMs have been seamlessly integrated into evaluation frameworks, and together with human evaluation, compose the backbone of most evaluations. However, existing evaluation benchmarks often rely on outdated datasets and evaluate aspects like Fluency and Relevance, which fail to adequately capture the capabilities and limitations of state-of-the-art chatbot models. This paper critically examines current evaluation benchmarks, highlighting that the use of older response generators and quality aspects fail to accurately reflect modern chatbot capabilities. A small annotation experiment on a recent LLM-generated dataset (SODA) reveals that LLM evaluators such as GPT-4 struggle to detect actual deficiencies in dialogues generated by current LLM chatbots.
Read more7/8/2024
💬
0
MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation
Qian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, Jure Leskovec
A central aspect of machine learning research is experimentation, the process of designing and running experiments, analyzing the results, and iterating towards some positive outcome (e.g., improving accuracy). Could agents driven by powerful language models perform machine learning experimentation effectively? To answer this question, we introduce MLAgentBench, a suite of 13 tasks ranging from improving model performance on CIFAR-10 to recent research problems like BabyLM. For each task, an agent can perform actions like reading/writing files, executing code, and inspecting outputs. We then construct an agent that can perform ML experimentation based on ReAct framework. We benchmark agents based on Claude v1.0, Claude v2.1, Claude v3 Opus, GPT-4, GPT-4-turbo, Gemini-Pro, and Mixtral and find that a Claude v3 Opus agent is the best in terms of success rate. It can build compelling ML models over many tasks in MLAgentBench with 37.5% average success rate. Our agents also display highly interpretable plans and actions. However, the success rates vary considerably; they span from 100% on well-established older datasets to as low as 0% on recent Kaggle challenges created potentially after the underlying LM was trained. Finally, we identify several key challenges for LM-based agents such as long-term planning and reducing hallucination. Our code is released at https://github.com/snap-stanford/MLAgentBench.
Read more4/16/2024