arXiv subjects

Chloe Evans

Publications and source records attributed to Chloe Evans.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

ADeptS-Bench: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Computer Use Agents Across Devices

Computer Use Agents (CUAs) are increasingly deployed to navigate mobile and desktop applications on behalf of users, yet no benchmark comprehensively evaluates whether they can safely interact with visual interfaces while handling ambiguous instructions. We introduce ADeptS-Bench, a dual-stream trustworthiness benchmark, grounded in the ADEPTS capability framework and general population user studies. The Safety stream provides paired benign/malicious tasks with threats embedded in the visual interface. The Disambiguation stream evaluates whether agents seek clarification when intent is ambiguous. Evaluating seven models reveals that no model consistently exceeds 80% task success while staying below 30% attack success; every model clicks "Checkout" on a $25K order without hesitation, and none detects that a "factory reset" button is mislabeled as "Optimize." An ablation reveals three distinct safety architectures: tool-dependent (ASR +21-23pp without refusal tool), partially tool-dependent (+10-11pp), and no mechanism (unchanged). In disambiguation, all models overestimate consequence severity, mirroring the over-refusal bias observed in safety. We release all data, evaluation code, and analysis tools upon publication.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

CausalVQA: A Physically Grounded Causal Reasoning Benchmark for Video Models

We introduce CausalVQA, a benchmark dataset for video question answering (VQA) composed of question-answer pairs that probe models' understanding of causality in the physical world. Existing VQA benchmarks either tend to focus on surface perceptual understanding of real-world videos, or on narrow physical reasoning questions created using simulation environments. CausalVQA fills an important gap by presenting challenging questions that are grounded in real-world scenarios, while focusing on models' ability to predict the likely outcomes of different actions and events through five question types: counterfactual, hypothetical, anticipation, planning and descriptive. We designed quality control mechanisms that prevent models from exploiting trivial shortcuts, requiring models to base their answers on deep visual understanding instead of linguistic cues. We find that current frontier multimodal models fall substantially below human performance on the benchmark, especially on anticipation and hypothetical questions. This highlights a challenge for current systems to leverage spatial-temporal reasoning, understanding of physical principles, and comprehension of possible alternatives to make accurate predictions in real-world settings.

cs.CV↗