# Unveiling Disparities in Web Task Handling Between Human and Web Agent

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04497 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04497/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 7 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 May 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [SeeClick: Harnessing GUI Grounding for Advanced Visual GUI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10935/) (2024)
- [GPT-4V(ision) is a Generalist Web Agent, if Grounded](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01614/) (2024)
- [OS-Copilot: Towards Generalist Computer Agents with Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07456/) (2024)
- [InfiAgent-DABench: Evaluating Agents on Data Analysis Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05507/) (2024)
- [ScreenAgent: A Vision Language Model-driven Computer Control Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07945/) (2024)
- [CALYPSO: LLMs as Dungeon Masters' Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07540/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [How Do AI Agents Do Human Work? Comparing AI and Human Workflows Across Diverse Occupations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22780/) (2025)
- [Interaction-Driven Browsing: A Human-in-the-Loop Conceptual Framework Informed by Human Web Browsing for Browser-Using Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.12049/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With the advancement of Large-Language Models (LLMs) and Large Vision-Language Models (LVMs), agents have shown significant capabilities in various tasks, such as data analysis, gaming, or code generation. Recently, there has been a surge in research on web agents, capable of performing tasks within the web environment. However, the web poses unforeseeable scenarios, challenging the generalizability of these agents. This study investigates the disparities between human and web agents' performance in web tasks (e.g., information search) by concentrating on planning, action, and reflection aspects during task execution. We conducted a web task study with a think-aloud protocol, revealing distinct cognitive actions and operations on websites employed by humans. Comparative examination of existing agent structures and human behavior with thought processes highlighted differences in knowledge updating and ambiguity handling when performing the task. Humans demonstrated a propensity for exploring and modifying plans based on additional information and investigating reasons for failure. These findings offer insights into designing planning, reflection, and information discovery modules for web agents and designing the capturing method for implicit human knowledge in a web task.