DiagEval: Trajectory-Conditioned Diagnosis for Reliable Software Evaluation with GUI Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → GUI and mobile agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluating LLM-generated interactive software requires execution in addition to static analysis. The key difficulty is that correctness is a graph-level reachable property over latent UI state-transition graphs, whereas a GUI evaluator observes only a single execution trajectory. A failed rollout therefore rules out only one realized path, leaving failure attribution ambiguous between evaluator-side execution error and genuine software defect. We present DiagEval, a trajectory-conditioned diagnostic evaluation protocol for post-failure GUI-agent evaluation of interactive software. Rather than blindly retrying from scratch, DiagEval reuses the failed trajectory to choose targeted diagnostic probes and aggregates their outcomes into an internal attribution signal. The latent-graph view motivates the diagnostic problem; DiagEval does not reconstruct the graph or estimate calibrated posterior probabilities. We evaluate DiagEval on WebDevJudge-Unit and RealDevBench across multiple GUI-agent evaluators and LLM backbones. On false-negative cases, DiagEval recovers 45.6-62.1% of failures that were initially misattributed to software defects, outperforming retry-based baselines with 34.4-160.6% relative gains. On the full evaluation sets, this recovery improves accuracy from 69.9% to 78.3% on WebDevJudge-Unit and from 65.0% to 81.6% on RealDevBench. These results suggest that reliable GUI-agent evaluation requires not only stronger execution, but also active failure diagnosis to disambiguate evaluator-side errors from genuine software defects. Our code is available at https://github.com/scutGit/DiagEval.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in GUI and mobile agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 50 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 May 2026.
Builds on
50 of 65 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2026The Art of Building Verifiers for Computer Use Agents5 Apr
- 2026GUITester: Enabling GUI Agents for Exploratory Defect Discovery8 Jan
- 2025UXAgent: An LLM Agent-Based Usability Testing Framework for Web Design18 Feb
- 2025UI-TARS: Pioneering Automated GUI Interaction with Native Agents21 Jan
- 2024OS-ATLAS: A Foundation Action Model for Generalist GUI Agents30 Oct
- 2024Navigating the Digital World as Humans Do: Universal Visual Grounding for GUI Agents7 Oct
- 2024GUICourse: From General Vision Language Models to Versatile GUI Agents17 Jun
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments11 Apr
- 2024SeeClick: Harnessing GUI Grounding for Advanced Visual GUI Agents17 Jan
Other references · 41
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 724
- 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 527
- 2024AndroidWorld: A Dynamic Benchmarking Environment for Autonomous Agentscited by 450
29 more
- 2024MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 429
- 2024WebVoyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Modelscited by 424
- 2024MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmarkcited by 362
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 351
- 2023RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systemscited by 346
- 2024Aguvis: Unified Pure Vision Agents for Autonomous GUI Interactioncited by 271
- 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 197
- 2023CrossCodeEval: A Diverse and Multilingual Benchmark for Cross-File Code Completioncited by 181
- 2024Aria-UI: Visual Grounding for GUI Instructionscited by 136
- 2025AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?cited by 105
- 2025SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn 1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering?cited by 99
- 2025WebGen-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Generating Interactive and Functional Websites from Scratchcited by 66
- 2019Distributionally Robust Reinforcement Learningcited by 40
- 2025RocketEval: Efficient Automated LLM Evaluation via Grading Checklistcited by 37
- 2025LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 33
- 2026Seeing the Whole Elephant: A Benchmark for Failure Attribution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systemscited by 22
- 2025Training LLM-Based Agents with Synthetic Self-Reflected Trajectories and Partial Maskingcited by 16
- 2025MIRAGE-Bench: LLM Agent is Hallucinating and Where to Find Themcited by 16
- 2025You Don't Know Until You Click:Automated GUI Testing for Production-Ready Software Evaluationcited by 11
- 2025WebGen-Agent: Enhancing Interactive Website Generation with Multi-Level Feedback and Step-Level Reinforcement Learningcited by 11
- 2025WebDevJudge: Evaluating (M)LLMs as Critiques for Web Development Qualitycited by 10
- 2026PlayCoder: Making LLM-Generated GUI Code Playablecited by 10
- 2025Code Aesthetics with Agentic Reward Feedbackcited by 6
- 2025AI Agents for Web Testing: A Case Study in the Wildcited by 5
- 2025Agent-Environment Alignment via Automated Interface Generationcited by 4
- 2026WebTestBench: Evaluating Computer-Use Agents towards End-to-End Automated Web Testingcited by 4
- 2026HalluClear: Diagnosing, Evaluating and Mitigating Hallucinations in GUI Agentscited by 3
- 2024AI-powered software testing tools: A systematic review and empirical assessment of their features and limitationscited by 2
- 2025LLMShot: Reducing snapshot testing maintenance via LLMscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026GUITAR: Structured Failure Diagnosis of GUI Agents via State Transitions
- 2026GUIDE: Interpretable GUI Agent Evaluation via Hierarchical Diagnosis
- 2026AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents
- 2026Leveraging Trajectory Graphs for Pre-Execution Error Diagnosis in Agentic LLM Systems
- 2026GUITestScape: Towards Open-set Evaluation on Exploratory GUI Testing
- 2026AgentTether: Graph-Guided Diagnosis and Runtime Intervention for Reliable LLM Agent Operation
- 2026Debugging the Debuggers: Failure-Anchored Structured Recovery for Software Engineering Agents
- 2026CUJBench: Benchmarking LLM-Agent on Cross-Modal Failure Diagnosis from Browser to Backend