Inducing Task Models from Computer-Use Traces

Naturalistic computer-use traces, passively recorded screenshots and mouse or keyboard actions, are a valuable resource for deriving symbolic, auditable, and reusable models of how everyday work is done. Such models matter as computer-use agents enter real work, where agents need to learn how tasks are actually performed, and organizations need to audit and reuse that knowledge. However, inducing such task models is challenging, as activity is observed only as low-level events and real-world work is multi-threaded with interleaved goals. Existing methods assume a given task or a single workflow, and produce step-level summaries rather than structured task models. We introduce Task Model Induction (TMI), which (i) discovers the latent tasks in an unconstrained trace, disentangling concurrent activity, and (ii) for each latent task, induces a task model pairing a hierarchical objective model of recursive goal decomposition with a procedure model of the control flow that organized the execution. Intrinsically, on controlled human and agent trajectories, TMI recovers interleaved tasks with 0.974 agreement against ground-truth groupings and reconstructs 74.9% of the observed execution steps, far more than the strongest workflow induction baseline. Extrinsically, skills derived from TMI's task models improve held-out task accuracy by 30.0% over the strongest baseline.

JudgmentBench: Comparing Rubric and Preference Evaluation for Quality Assessment

Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs. Although both methodologies are widely used, the choice between them is rarely justified. We release JudgmentBench, a benchmark of 30 real-world legal tasks, paired with 1,539 rubric scores and 1,530 pairwise preference judgments collected from practicing attorneys--including at major U.S. law firms--with substantial experience. The annotations constitute the first publicly available dataset in a high-expertise domain in which both supervision signals are elicited from the same experts on the same items. Using LLM-generated outputs at three constructed quality levels, we provide an initial empirical comparison: comparative judgments recover the intended quality ordering substantially better than rubrics (mean Spearman's rank correlation of 0.908 vs. 0.150, estimated difference = 0.758 [0.494, 1.021]) while requiring less than half the annotation time. The patterns hold for human annotators and LLM autograders. Beyond this initial comparison, the paired structure of the dataset supports a broader research agenda on how expert judgment should be elicited, aggregated, and used as supervision in domains without verifiable ground truth.