探索全球前沿学术脉络

Automating SKILL.md Generation for Computer-Using Agents via Interaction Trajectory Mining

arXiv:2606.20363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explicit skill libraries make computer-using agents easier to inspect, but it remains unclear whether such libraries can be mined from interaction data in a way that improves downstream policies. We study this question through a three-stage pipeline that segments GUI trajectories, clusters segments into candidate skills, and trains a skill-aware policy from the resulting annotations. The mined clusters are readable on the source benchmark: five of eight clusters have at least 0.95 purity against InteraSkill Workflows labels. However, readability does not imply transfer. GRPO improves IW skill-step accuracy only from 18.5\% to 20.5\%, leaves BrowseComp+ essentially unchanged, and underperforms trivial frequency priors on key source-domain metrics. We therefore present the method as a diagnostic study: trajectory mining can expose inspectable skill structure, but the current boundary detector, orderless segment representation, and offline reward model are insufficient for reliable cross-domain policy improvement.

UXBench: Measuring the Actionability of LLM-Generated UX Critiques

arXiv:2606.16262v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as UX judges that inspect interfaces, diagnose usability problems, and propose repairs. Yet no controlled benchmark measures whether the resulting critiques are reliable and actionable across heterogeneous product surfaces. We introduce UXBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs as interaction-grounded UX judges. UXBench comprises local-first runnable web fixtures spanning ten product-surface families, paired with coverage-gated browser exploration that forces models to collect interaction evidence before reporting. Each judge model produces a structured UX report over seven rubric dimensions; report quality is measured by whether a fixed downstream repair agent can improve the interface based on the critique. We evaluate eight frontier models under both an automated repair-lift protocol and a blind human validation study. Results show that UX judging is neither saturated nor one dimensional: models differ meaningfully in report actionability, exhibit distinct rubric-level repair signatures, vary in fixture-level reliability, and trade leadership across surface categories