SteP: Stacked LLM Policies for Web Actions
Open accessAbstract
Performing tasks on the web presents fundamental challenges to large language models (LLMs), including combinatorially large open-world tasks and variations across web interfaces. Simply specifying a large prompt to handle all possible behaviors and states is extremely complex, and results in behavior leaks between unrelated behaviors. Decomposition to distinct policies can address this challenge, but requires carefully handing off control between policies. We propose Stacked LLM Policies for Web Actions (SteP), an approach to dynamically compose policies to solve a diverse set of web tasks. SteP defines a Markov Decision Process where the state is a stack of policies representing the control state, i.e., the chain of policy calls. Unlike traditional methods that are restricted to static hierarchies, SteP enables dynamic control that adapts to the complexity of the task. We evaluate SteP against multiple baselines and web environments including WebArena, MiniWoB++, and a CRM. On WebArena, SteP improves (14.9\% to 33.5\%) over SOTA that use GPT-4 policies, while on MiniWob++, SteP is competitive with prior works while using significantly less data. Our code and data are available at https://asappresearch.github.io/webagents-step.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
STeP has an accuracy of 35.8% on the WebArena leaderboard.
“It has an accuracy of 35.8%, more than double the accuracy of the top-performing baseline agent introduced in the WebArena paper, and over 10 percentage points more than the next-best agent [13].”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
Section 5.1.1 (p. 6) reports SteP’s overall WebArena result as 0.33, or 33%, rather than 35.8%. The paper describes this as a success rate across WebArena tasks, not a 35.8% leaderboard accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAWM outperforms SteP, which uses human expert written workflows, by a 7.6% relative increase in overall success rate on WebArena.
“Notably, AWM also outperforms SteP, which uses strong domain-specific supervision from humanwritten workflows, by a 7 . 6 %relative increase in overall success rate.”
From Agent Workflow Memory (2024) · cites this paper as Sodhi et al., 2023
The Limitations section (p. 10) says SteP requires users to identify subtasks and write policy prompts using domain knowledge; the Abstract (p. 1) reports a 33.5% WebArena success rate. The paper does not compare SteP with AWM or report a 7.6% relative improvement by AWM, so it cannot support that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSteP uses 14 human expert written workflows tailored to solving WebArena.
“We also compare to the SteP method (Sodhi et al., 2023), which uses 14 human expert written workflows tailored to solving WebArena.”
From Agent Workflow Memory (2024) · cites this paper as Sodhi et al., 2023
The Experimental Setup (p. 6) says SteP uses a library of 14 policies for WebArena and describes how their prompts are constructed. It does not call them workflows or say they were written by human experts, so those descriptions are not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSTeP's accuracy is more than double the accuracy of the top-performing baseline agent introduced in the WebArena paper.
“It has an accuracy of 35.8%, more than double the accuracy of the top-performing baseline agent introduced in the WebArena paper, and over 10 percentage points more than the next-best agent [13].”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
This affects the evaluation of the STeP agent.
“This affects the evaluation of the STeP agent [47].”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
Section 5.1 Experimental Setup (p. 6) describes how SteP was evaluated, and Section 5.1.4 (p. 10) discusses a trade-off in its context efficiency. But the citing sentence does not identify what “This” refers to, so our copy cannot establish whether that unspecified factor affects SteP’s evaluation. I searched for evaluation limitations and factors affecting benchmark results. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Both LATS and STeP marked some incorrectly completed tasks as correct.
“For example, both LATS [65] and STeP [47] marked some incorrectly completed tasks as correct.”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
The Experimental Setup (p. 6) defines success by whether a task was completed, and Appendix B.3 (pp. 28–29) describes incorrect actions by SteP. Neither passage says SteP marked an incorrectly completed task as correct. Searches for false-positive success judgments and mistaken task-completion assessments found no such report in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoth LATS and STeP removed a small number of tasks from the benchmark (1 and 8 tasks respectively).
“Similarly, both agents removed a small number of tasks from the benchmark (1 and 8 tasks for LATS and STeP respectively).”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
The Experimental Setup (p. 6) says SteP evaluated on all 804 WebArena tasks, but does not say it removed eight tasks or give a larger original task count. Searches for removed or excluded tasks found no passage establishing that claim. The LATS figure is not attributed to this source for this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Syeda Nahida Akter, Zichun Yu, Aashiq Muhamed, Tianyue Ou, Alex Bäuerle, Ángel Alexander Cabrera, Krish Dholakia, Chenyan Xiong, and Graham Neubig. An in-depth look at gemini's language abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11444 , 2023. · arXiv
- Yoav Artzi and Luke Zettlemoyer. Weakly supervised learning of semantic parsers for mapping instructions to actions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL) , 2013.
- Satchuthananthavale RK Branavan, Harr Chen, Luke S Zettlemoyer, and Regina Barzilay. Reinforcement learning for mapping instructions to actions. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2009.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2020.
- Xiang Deng, Yu Gu, Boyuan Zheng, Shijie Chen, Samuel Stevens, Boshi Wang, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06070 , 2023. · arXiv
- Hiroki Furuta, Ofir Nachum, Kuang-Huei Lee, Yutaka Matsuo, Shixiang Shane Gu, and Izzeddin Gur. Multimodal web navigation with instruction-finetuned foundation models. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2024.
- Izzeddin Gur, Natasha Jaques, Yang Miao, Jiayuan Choi, Manik Tiwari, Honglak Lee, and Alex Faust. Environment generation for zero-shot compositional reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34, 2022a.
- Izzeddin Gur, Ofir Nachum, Yingjie Miao, Mustafa Safdari, Austin Huang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Noah Fiedel, and Aleksandra Faust. Understanding HTML with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03945 , 2022b. · arXiv
- John E Hopcroft and Jeffrey D Ullman. Formal languages and their relation to automata . Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1969.
- Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2022a.
- Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608 , 2022b. · arXiv
- Peter C Humphreys, David Raposo, Tobias Pohlen, Gregory Thornton, Rachita Chhaparia, Alistair Muldal, Josh Abramson, Petko Georgiev, Adam Santoro, and Timothy Lillicrap. Adata-driven approach for learning to control computers. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2022.
- Tomoyuki Kagaya, Thong Jing Yuan, Yuxuan Lou, Jayashree Karlekar, Sugiri Pranata, Akira Kinose, Koki Oguri, Felix Wick, and Yang You. Rap: Retrieval-augmented planning with contextual memory for multimodal llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03610 , 2024. · arXiv
- Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2023.
- Geunwoo Kim, Pierre Baldi, and Stephen McAleer. Language models can solve computer tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 36, 2023.
- Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753 , 2022. · arXiv
- Evan Zheran Liu, Kelvin Guu, Panupong Pasupat, Tianlin Shi, and Percy Liang. Reinforcement learning on web interfaces using workflow-guided exploration. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2018.
- Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. arxiv 2023. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL) , 2023.
- Kaixin Ma, Hongming Zhang, Hongwei Wang, Xiaoman Pan, and Dong Yu. Laser: Llm agent with state-space exploration for web navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08172 , 2023. · arXiv
- Ofir Nachum, Shixiang Shane Gu, Honglak Lee, and Sergey Levine. Data-efficient hierarchical reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 31, 2018.
- Joakim Nivre. Algorithms for deterministic incremental dependency parsing. Computational Linguistics , 34(4):513-553, 2008.
- Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155 , 2022. · arXiv
- Archiki Prasad, Alexander Koller, Mareike Hartmann, Peter Clark, Ashish Sabharwal, Mohit Bansal, and Tushar Khot. Adapt: As-needed decomposition and planning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05772 , 2023. · arXiv
- Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761 , 2023. · arXiv
- Tianlin Shi, Andrej Karpathy, Linxi Fan, Jonathan Hernandez, and Percy Liang. World of bits: An open-domain platform for web-based agents. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2017.
- Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Beck Labash, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.(2023). arXiv preprint cs.AI/2303.11366 , 2023.
- Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2023.
- Haotian Sun, Yuchen Zhuang, Lingkai Kong, Bo Dai, and Chao Zhang. Adaplanner: Adaptive planning from feedback with language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 36, 2024.
- Chen Tessler, Shahar Givony, Tom Zahavy, Daniel Mankowitz, and Shie Mannor. A deep hierarchical approach to lifelong learning in minecraft. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 31, 2017.
- Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Simon Osindero, Tom Schaul, Nicolas Heess, Max Jaderberg, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Feudal networks for hierarchical reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning , pp. 3540-3549. PMLR, 2017.
- Huaxiaoyue Wang, Gonzalo Gonzalez-Pumariega, Yash Sharma, and Sanjiban Choudhury. Demo2code: From summarizing demonstrations to synthesizing code via extended chainof-thought. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2023a.
- Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432 , 2023b. · arXiv
- Rui Yang, Lin Song, Yanwei Li, Sijie Zhao, Yixiao Ge, Xiu Li, and Ying Shan. Gpt4tools: Teaching large language model to use tools via self-instruction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2024.
- Shunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, and Karthik Narasimhan. Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2022a.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 , 2022b. · arXiv
- Longtao Zheng, Rundong Wang, Xinrun Wang, and Bo An. Synapse: Trajectory-as-exemplar prompting with memory for computer control. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2024.
- Shuyan Zhou, Pengcheng Yin, and Graham Neubig. Hierarchical control of situated agents through natural language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08214 , 2021. · arXiv
- Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, et al. WebArena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854 , 2023. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, Z. Z., Mao, J., Fried, D., & Neubig, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07429 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“…for Complex Tasks Many works improve agents by modifying their action space, such as constraining its action search space (Liu et al., 2018), enabling LM self-feedback to refine predicted actions (Sun et al., 2023), or incorporating human-designed actions to certain tasks (Sodhi et al., 2023).”
InfluentialKapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Siegel, Z. S., Nadgir, N., & Narayanan, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.01502 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Consider the top agent on the WebArena leaderboard, called STeP [47].”
Cohen, Y., & Aperstein, Y. (2024) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202405.0720.v1 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
R2D2: Remembering, Replaying and Dynamic Decision Making with a Reflective Agentic Memory
Huang, T., Basu, K., Abdelaziz, I., Kapanipathi, P., May, J., & Chen, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1464 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Sodhi et al. (2024) have introduced a novel framework that leverages human-engineered workflows to compose policies to tackle web tasks.”
WebAgent-R1: Training Web Agents via End-to-End Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning
Wei, Z., Yao, W., Liu, Y., Zhang, W., Lu, Q., Qiu, L., Yu, C., Xu, P., Zhang, C., Yin, B., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.16421
“Early works on web agents primarily relied on prompting-based methods (Wang et al., 2024b; Sodhi et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025b) or behavior cloning (BC), which imi-tates demonstrated trajectories via supervised fine-tuning (Yin et al., 2024; Hong et al.,…”
SkillWeaver: Web Agents can Self-Improve by Discovering and Honing Skills
Zheng, B., Fatemi, M. Y., Jin, X., Wang, Z. Z., Gandhi, A., Song, Y., Gu, Y., Srinivasa, J., Liu, G., Neubig, G., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.07079
- Authors
- Sodhi, P., Branavan, S. R. K., Artzi, Y., & McDonald, R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2310.03720
- OpenAlex
- W4387441491
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- web agents, large language models, policy composition, dynamic control, Markov decision process, WebArena
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
