Shuquan Lian, Yuhang Wu, Jia Ma, Yifan Ding, Zihan Song, Bingqi Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Hui Li, Rongrong Ji
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
The emergence of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has driven significant advances in Graphical User Interface (GUI) agent capabilities. Nevertheless, existing GUI agent training and inference techniques still suffer from a dilemma for reasoning designs, ineffective reward, and visual noise. To address these issues, we introduce UI-AGILE for enhancing GUI agents at both training and inference. For training, we ...
propose a suite of improvements to the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) process: 1) a continuous reward function to incentivize high-precision grounding; 2) a ``Simple Thinking'' reward to balance planning with speed and grounding accuracy; and 3) a cropping-based resampling strategy to mitigate the sparse reward problem and improve learning on complex tasks. For inference, we present decomposed grounding with selection to dramatically improve grounding accuracy on high-resolution displays by breaking the image into smaller, manageable parts. Experiments show that UI-AGILE achieves the state-of-the-art grounding performance on two benchmarks ScreenSpot-Pro and ScreenSpot-v2 while it also exhibits strong general agent capabilities. For instance, using both our training and inference enhancement methods brings 23\% grounding accuracy improvement over the best baseline on ScreenSpot-Pro. We provide the code in https://github.com/KDEGroup/UI-AGILE.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic tool use | CogAgent-18B | pass@4. | 1.8 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
The emergence of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has driven significant advances in Graphical User Interface (GUI) agent capabilities.
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 · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
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
Agentic tool use
Methods
Reinforcement learning
Domains
Computer vision, Natural Language Processing, 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.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.