REVIEW 2 cited by
Toward a Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Trustworthy LLM-Powered GUI Agents
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized Graphical User Interface (GUI) automation through LLM-powered GUI agents, yet their ability to process sensitive data with limited human oversight raises significant privacy and security risks. This position paper identifies three key risks of GUI agents and examines how they differ from traditional GUI automation and general autonomous agents. Despite these risks, existing evaluations focus primarily on performance, leaving privacy and security assessments largely unexplored. We review current evaluation metrics for both GUI and general LLM agents and outline five key challenges in integrating human evaluators for GUI agent assessments. To address these gaps, we advocate for a human-centered evaluation framework that incorporates risk assessments, enhances user awareness through in-context consent, and embeds privacy and security considerations into GUI agent design and evaluation.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ReGUIDE: Data Efficient GUI Grounding via Spatial Reasoning and Search
ReGUIDE reaches state-of-the-art GUI grounding accuracy using 0.2% of the usual training data by adding self-generated reasoning, spatial-consistency training, and test-time KDE coordinate search.
-
Dark Patterns Meet GUI Agents: LLM Agent Susceptibility to Manipulative Interfaces and the Role of Human Oversight
GUI agents frequently fall for deceptive interface designs, often without recognizing them, and human supervision of agents improves avoidance only partially while introducing new attention and workload costs.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.