Tomás Vergara Browne

arXiv2026

AdaptArena: Evaluating Test-Time Personalization of Web Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated strong performance on complex web navigation tasks, yet they remain brittle in real-world settings where user intentions are underspecified and preferences are heterogeneous. In practice, users rarely provide explicit profiles, requiring agents to infer latent preferences from implicit signals. Despite its importance for deployment, this problem setting is largely underexplored in existing benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce AdaptArena, a benchmark for evaluating test-time personalization of web agents via implicit preference inference. AdaptArena consists of 480 tasks, featuring both single-preference and double-preference scenarios. Each evaluation task must be solved by retrieving and leveraging the most relevant historical user trajectory that implicitly encodes the target preference. In addition, we introduce AdaptiveAgent, a retrieval-based framework for standardized evaluation of implicit preference inference. Experiments reveal a substantial performance gap: while oracle agents with access to ground-truth preferences achieve an 82.92% success rate, the evaluated LLM agents using our framework reach at most 15.62%. Furthermore, we find that correctly inferring user preferences is necessary but not sufficient for task success, as execution failures in downstream web interactions remain a significant bottleneck even when agents align with the target preference. These findings highlight implicit preference inference and robust action grounding as key challenges for deploying reliable, user-facing web agents. We release our code: https://github.com/McGill-NLP/web-agents-test-time-adaptations

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Large Language Models are biased to overestimate profoundness

Recent advancements in natural language processing by large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, have been suggested to approach Artificial General Intelligence. And yet, it is still under dispute whether LLMs possess similar reasoning abilities to humans. This study evaluates GPT-4 and various other LLMs in judging the profoundness of mundane, motivational, and pseudo-profound statements. We found a significant statement-to-statement correlation between the LLMs and humans, irrespective of the type of statements and the prompting technique used. However, LLMs systematically overestimate the profoundness of nonsensical statements, with the exception of Tk-instruct, which uniquely underestimates the profoundness of statements. Only few-shot learning prompts, as opposed to chain-of-thought prompting, draw LLMs ratings closer to humans. Furthermore, this work provides insights into the potential biases induced by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), inducing an increase in the bias to overestimate the profoundness of statements.

cs.CL↗