{ "canonical_type": "markdown_editor", "coverage": { "agent_run_count": 4, "available_run_uids": [ "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__ax_tree", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__som", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__pixel", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browser_use__browser_use" ], "human_available": true, "human_visual_available": false, "realized_available": true }, "cross_run_analysis": { "dominant_failure_family": "mixed", "evidence_run_uids": [ "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__ax_tree", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__som", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__pixel", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browser_use__browser_use" ], "evidence_step_refs": [ "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__ax_tree step 0", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__ax_tree step 2", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__som step 3", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__som step 10", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__pixel step 10", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__pixel step 19", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browser_use__browser_use step 2", "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browser_use__browser_use step 7" ], "likely_grounding_limited": true, "likely_recovery_limited": true, "likely_skill_fixable": true, "secondary_failure_families": [ "grounding", "interaction_knowledge", "recovery_state_tracking" ], "why": "This task stresses two coupled abilities: scrolling inside a fixed-height editor and making a precise single-line edit without changing surrounding markdown. The failed browsergym runs split along interface lines. `som` never achieved an observable state change after focusing the editor and looped through keyboard navigation, indicating weak knowledge of how to drive this internally scrollable text surface and weak state verification. `pixel` got closer, reaching the Metadata region in the screenshots, but then spent many steps clicking nearby coordinates without ever inserting text, which is classic caret-placement grounding failure. `ax_tree` had enough semantic access to the textarea but used it incorrectly by filling the whole document at step 0 and then declaring completion at step 2 without checking the automatic success trigger. The only success came from `browser_use`, which bypassed the fragile interaction path by directly evaluating against the textarea and finally rewriting the full content string." }, "family_id": "advanced_editors", "interesting_observation": "The task is less about recognizing the target string than about whether the agent can treat a markdown editor as an internally scrollable text surface; the lone success avoided that bottleneck by manipulating the textarea as a DOM string instead of as a visually grounded editor.", "library": "external", "paper_useful_quote": "In this markdown-editor task, the grounded browsergym agents either failed to expose the offscreen Metadata line or could not place the caret on `Release date: TBD`, while the only successful run solved it by directly manipulating the textarea DOM and rewriting the content string.", "run_observations": [ { "confidence": "high", "evidence_image_paths": [], "evidence_step_ids": [ 0, 1, 2 ], "failure_or_success_narrative": "The ax-tree run diverged immediately by issuing a full `fill` on the editor at step 0 with a reconstructed markdown document rather than scrolling to the offscreen Metadata section and editing a single field. It then sent a success-style message at step 1 and reported `DONE`/infeasible at step 2 even though the task had not auto-completed, showing no verification of the actual environment state.", "first_divergence_agent_step": 0, "first_divergence_human_step": 0, "framework": "browsergym", "human_vs_agent_difference": "The human used the existing editor state, scrolled within it, clicked the target line, and typed only the new date. The ax-tree agent replaced the whole textarea contents from the start and never validated that the benchmark considered the task solved.", "is_benchmark_issue": false, "is_grounding_limited": false, "is_skill_fixable": true, "mode": "ax_tree", "model_family": "gemini", "model_name": "gemini/gemini-3.1-flash-lite", "primary_failure_family": "interaction_knowledge", "repair_suggestion": "Prefer substring-level edits inside the existing textarea, preserve unchanged content, and require confirmation from the page's success signal before terminating.", "run_uid": "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__ax_tree", "secondary_failure_tags": [ "did_not_know_ui_idiom", "failed_to_confirm", "premature_terminate" ], "success": false, "uncertainty_note": "The trace is short and clear; the failure mode is directly evidenced by the step log." }, { "confidence": "medium", "evidence_image_paths": [], "evidence_step_ids": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ], "failure_or_success_narrative": "The SOM run matched the human for the initial two scrolls and first click, but after that it never converted focus into progress. From step 3 onward it alternated among more scrolls and editor key presses (`PageDown`, `End`, repeated `ArrowUp`, `Home`, later `ArrowDown`) until max steps. The contact sheet shows the editor looking effectively unchanged across these attempts, and there is no text insertion at any point.", "first_divergence_agent_step": 3, "first_divergence_human_step": 3, "framework": "browsergym", "human_vs_agent_difference": "The human used two internal scrolls and then directly clicked into the target line to type. The SOM agent focused the editor but then treated it as a navigable region, cycling through keyboard movement commands without producing the needed visible state change or edit.", "is_benchmark_issue": false, "is_grounding_limited": false, "is_skill_fixable": true, "mode": "som", "model_family": "gemini", "model_name": "gemini/gemini-3.1-flash-lite", "primary_failure_family": "interaction_knowledge", "repair_suggestion": "After focusing the editor, use interaction strategies that are specific to textareas with internal scroll, and verify after each key press that the visible text changed before continuing.", "run_uid": "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__som", "secondary_failure_tags": [ "did_not_know_ui_idiom", "looping", "state_not_observed" ], "success": false, "uncertainty_note": "Later steps are truncated in the packet, but both the visible step sequence and contact sheet support the conclusion that it looped without editing." }, { "confidence": "high", "evidence_image_paths": [], "evidence_step_ids": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ], "failure_or_success_narrative": "The pixel run spent its early steps repeatedly scrolling, then clicked into the editor and continued with many coordinate clicks. By the lower-row screenshots, the Metadata section is visible, including `Release date: TBD`, but the agent keeps clicking around nearby positions (for example steps 10 through 14 and later step 19) and never types. This indicates that it got the target region into view but could not place the caret accurately enough to perform the one-line replacement.", "first_divergence_agent_step": 2, "first_divergence_human_step": 2, "framework": "browsergym", "human_vs_agent_difference": "The human reached the correct line and typed immediately after two clicks. The pixel agent eventually exposed the right region but then hunted around the small dense text area with repeated coordinate clicks and never executed the edit.", "is_benchmark_issue": false, "is_grounding_limited": true, "is_skill_fixable": true, "mode": "pixel", "model_family": "gemini", "model_name": "gemini/gemini-3.1-flash-lite", "primary_failure_family": "grounding", "repair_suggestion": "Use a more reliable caret-targeting strategy once the Metadata block is visible, such as selecting the textarea first and then issuing text-navigation or text-replacement actions instead of repeated nearby clicks.", "run_uid": "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browsergym__pixel", "secondary_failure_tags": [ "small_target", "looping", "state_not_observed" ], "success": false, "uncertainty_note": "The screenshots clearly show the target region becoming visible while the agent still fails to begin any text entry." }, { "confidence": "high", "evidence_image_paths": [], "evidence_step_ids": [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ], "failure_or_success_narrative": "The browser-use run succeeded by bypassing the fragile visual path. After navigation, it scrolled the editor and then used `evaluate` on the page to work with the textarea directly. Its first edit attempt at step 3 malformed the release-date line, but it recovered: it clicked back into the editor, issued `Control+a`, `Backspace`, and at step 7 rewrote the corrected full markdown content, which triggered task success.", "first_divergence_agent_step": 0, "first_divergence_human_step": 0, "framework": "browser_use", "human_vs_agent_difference": "The human performed a minimal localized edit after scrolling to the target. The browser-use agent solved the task through DOM-level access and full-document rewrite, recovering from an intermediate malformed edit rather than matching the human's precise caret-based interaction.", "is_benchmark_issue": false, "is_grounding_limited": false, "is_skill_fixable": true, "mode": "browser_use", "model_family": "gemini", "model_name": "gemini/gemini-3.1-flash-lite", "primary_failure_family": "none", "repair_suggestion": "No repair needed for task completion, though a more human-like solution would avoid full-document rewrite once the target field is found.", "run_uid": "gemini__gemini-3.1-flash-lite__browser_use__browser_use", "secondary_failure_tags": [], "success": true, "uncertainty_note": "The successful recovery path is explicit in the trace and consistent with the contact sheet." } ], "schema_version": "layer2_task_v1", "task_id": "markdown_editor-external-T24", "task_level_judgment": { "benchmark_issue_note": "No benchmark issue is evident. The human reference completed the task in 5 steps and the browser-use run also achieved automatic success, so the environment and success condition appear functional.", "benchmark_issue_suspected": false, "confidence": "high", "cross_run_summary": "This task cleanly separates agents that can directly manipulate a textarea from agents that must ground in the visible editor surface. The browser-use run succeeded by scrolling/finding the textarea through DOM-oriented actions and recovering via full rewrite. In contrast, browsergym `som` never achieved an observable internal-scroll/edit state and looped on keyboard navigation, `pixel` reached the right semantic region but failed to anchor a caret on the dense target line, and `ax_tree` overgeneralized from semantic access by replacing the whole document and terminating without confirmation.", "keep_revise_expand_retire_hint": "keep", "keep_revise_reason": "Keep this task because it is well-posed, human-solvable, and highly diagnostic of whether an agent can handle internal editor scrolling, precise line editing, and completion verification without relying on privileged DOM manipulation.", "overall_diagnostic_value": "high", "primary_task_story": "A single centered markdown editor hides the target field below the fold, so success depends on interacting with the editor's own scroll state and then making a surgical text change in a cramped raw-markdown view. That combination exposes a meaningful gap between semantic interfaces that can rewrite textarea contents wholesale and grounded interfaces that must actually reveal the Metadata section, place the caret on `Release date: TBD`, and avoid altering anything else.", "uncertainty_note": "Evidence is strong overall; the only modest uncertainty is that the SOM trace is truncated, but the visible steps and screenshots still make the loop failure mode clear." } }