Xue Yu, Bo Yuan, Pengshuai Yang, Kailin Zhao, Hong Hu, Junlan Feng
Mobile graphical user interface (GUI) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating complex tasks, yet they introduce critical safety risks where a single erroneous action can lead to irreversible consequences. Existing safety mechanisms are primarily reactive, lacking the ability to assess risks before execution. In this paper, we introduce SeerGuard, a consequence-aware safety framework designed to ...
mitigate these risks through pre-execution instruction-level screening and action-level risk assessment. Specifically, the action-level assessment analyzes agent-proposed actions within current GUI states, anticipating likely outcomes to identify risks before they are executed. To enable these capabilities, we construct a unified safety-augmented world model (SAWM) via multi-task learning, integrating semantic next-state prediction with safety risk assessment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SeerGuard generalizes effectively across diverse mobile GUI agents. On Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, it increases the safety-utility score from $0.191$ to $0.596$ at $ω=0.8$ and reduces the risk-cost score from $0.347$ to $0.130$ at $α=0.8$. Further analyses on our SAWM validate the effectiveness of the instruction-level screening, alongside the capability of action risk assessment and next-state prediction.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction tuning | Rule-based | Accuracy | 0.578 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Instruction tuning | GPT-5.1 | Accuracy | 0.676 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Instruction tuning | Qwen3-VL | Accuracy | 0.681 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Mobile graphical user interface (GUI) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating complex tasks, yet they introduce critical safety risks where a single erroneous action can lead to irreversible consequences.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Instruction tuning, Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer, Agentic systems
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
