PreprintCited by 0Web Data Mining and AnalysisInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorRobotic Process Automation Applications

AgentHeal: Evaluating Goal-Preserving Resource Recovery of Web Agents under Access Barriers

Open access
Liu, Zhiyi, Du, Haohua, Sun, Haoqi, Tan, Haisheng·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in automating complex information-seeking and transactional tasks across the open web. However, their real-world reliability remains limited by access barriers, such as dead links, authentication walls, rate limits, and anti-scraping defenses. These barriers block the primary execution path, causing agents to abort prematurely, loop indefinitely, or quietly compromise the user's original constraints. Existing evaluations either implicitly assume that target resources are freely accessible or focus on transient perturbations that simple retries can resolve, failing to capture scenarios where agents must actively reroute around impassable bottlenecks. To bridge this gap, this paper introduces AgentHeal, a comprehensive benchmark evaluating goal-preserving resource recovery, defined as the ability of web agents to detect non-transient access barriers, pivot to legitimate alternative sources, and fulfill the user's exact original objective. Spanning nine barrier families across a counterfactual sandbox and real-website replay, our experiments on leading LLM backbones show that average task success drops sharply from 89.4% to 43.7% under access barriers. Further analysis reveals that agents frequently fall for deceptive look-alikes, fail to escalate to users when necessary, violate access policies, or waste computation on futile retries, providing actionable diagnostics for developing resilient web agents.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2610.39234

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Liu, Z., Du, H., Sun, H., & Tan, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Beihang University (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7224758070
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • 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 › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Robotic Process Automation Applications
Keywords
web agents, LLM agents, access barriers, resource recovery, benchmark, dead links, authentication, rate limits, web scraping

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