MemU-Bench: Benchmarking GUI Agents on Long-Horizon User Interactions
arXiv:2611.00191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing Graphical User Interface (GUI) benchmarks predominantly rely on precise and stateless user instructions. In everyday usage, however, instructions are often \emph{vague and history-dependent}: users omit the exact details of their past operations because they no longer remember them, leaving the agent to recover the missing context from long and noisy interaction histories. To bridge this evaluation gap, we introduce \textbf{MemU-Bench}, a
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.00191. Source account: arXiv:2611.00191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing Graphical User Interface (GUI) benchmarks predominantly rely on precise and stateless user instructions. In everyday usage, however, instructions are often \emph{vague and history-dependent}: users omit the exact details of their past operations because they no longer remember them, leaving the agent to recover the missing context from long and noisy interaction histories. To bridge this evaluation gap, we introduce \textbf{MemU-Bench}, a
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Cognitive Bias Signatures in Search-Equipped LLM Agents: A Stage-Resolved Analysis” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026); “Prospective Memory for Proactive LLM Agents” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.