跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 06:43 — 2026-11-04 06:43(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.39488

InterA11y: Interactive Web Accessibility Error Detection with LLM Agents

Mingyuan Zhong, Mengqi Shi, Davin Win Kyi, Ajit Mallavarapu, Xia Chen, James Fogarty, Jacob O. Wobbrock

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential to expand the coverage of web accessibility evaluation. However, current LLM-based checkers neglect much of the interactive and dynamic web contexts, resulting in limited coverage, high false discovery rates, and inconsistent performance across models. We present InterA11y, an agentic accessibility evaluation system that combines rubrics and interactive tools to support LLM agents in evaluating accessibility effectively. The rubrics decompose WCAG success criteria (SC) into testable aspects and guide agents in collecting and interpreting evidence. The interactive tools inspect or operate a webpage deterministically to collect evidence, such as focus appearances and error messages. We developed these rubrics and tools on 682 curated test cases grounded in established accessibility guidelines that target 10 commonly violated SC. We evaluated InterA11y on 197 expert-annotated cases sampled from 54 real webpages. Results show InterA11y achieves higher recall than the strongest evaluated LLM-driven baseline (79.0% vs. 44.4%), while maintaining comparable precision to best rule-based checkers (93.1% vs. 90.3-97.6%), with little variability between models. Further, when equipped with our interactive tools, general-purpose web agents detect more accessibility errors with fewer false positives and less token usage than without these tools.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.HC
arXiv ↗PDF ↗