As web agents increasingly demonstrate capabilities in automated task execution, the development of robust evaluation frameworks for assessing their navigation and task completion performance has emerged as a critical research priority. However, existing benchmarks exhibit fundamental limitations. First, they suffer from insufficient scale and limited domain diversity, constraining comprehensive evaluation of cross-domain generalization. Second, prevailing LLM-as-Judge evaluation methodologies inadequately capture fine-grained interaction semantics, particularly regarding precise query formulation and filtering operations. Third, current benchmarks predominantly emphasize navigation success metrics while neglecting critical requirements for real-world deployment scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce WebRetriever, a large-scale benchmark encompassing 800 websites and 1,550 tasks across diverse domains, including consumer, professional, and enterprise sectors, with comprehensive coverage of user intent patterns. We propose NavEval (Navigation Evaluation), a novel LLM-as-Judge framework that leverages rich interaction context beyond visual screenshots, achieving state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment across multiple evaluation datasets. Furthermore, we establish three complementary evaluation protocols that collectively provide holistic assessment of web agent capabilities: navigation proficiency, knowledge-assisted interaction, and end-to-end task completion with information extraction. Extensive experimental analysis reveals substantial performance disparities across evaluation protocols, demonstrating that navigation success alone is an insufficient predictor of real-world application effectiveness. WebRetriever delivers fine-grained diagnostic insights into agent capabilities and establishes a rigorous foundation for advancing web agent research and development.
Vision-language alignment, the stage that bridges pretrained vision encoders and large language models, is widely treated as a form of pretraining requiring full-parameter updates. We challenge this view and investigate what happens when low-rank adaptation is applied to the LLM during this stage instead. We find that low-rank alignment not only reduces computational costs but also outperforms full-parameter alignment on most benchmarks. To understand this phenomenon, we systematically characterize the implicit biases introduced by low-rank adaptation during alignment. Empirically, we find that low-rank alignment shifts model behavior from hallucinatory to conservative and preserves per-token linear separability of visual features that full-parameter alignment disrupts, a phenomenon we term LS-curse. Geometrically, low rank aligned models exhibit more homogeneous and structurally stable visual representations, maintaining modality-specific knowledge rather than prematurely fusing entity-level semantics. Theoretically, we establish two theorems showing that low-rank alignment induces preferences for parameter subspaces with flat gradients and feature subspaces robust to perturbations, providing a principled explanation for the observed structure-preserving behavior. Extensive experiments cover ablation over 100 alignment configurations, three families of low-rank operators, and various rank, encoder, and other settings.
Mingjia Shi, Shuo Wang, Xiaobo Wang et al.· 0 citations