CoME: Empowering Channel-of-Mobile-Experts with Informative Hybrid-Capabilities Reasoning

Yuxuan Liu, Weikai Xu, Kun Huang, Changyu Chen, Jiankun Zhao, Pengzhi Gao, Wei Liu, Jian Luan, Shuo Shang, Bo Du, Ji-Rong Wen, Rui Yan · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Mobile Agents can autonomously execute user instructions, which requires hybrid-capabilities reasoning, including screen summary, subtask planning, action decision and action function. However, existing agents struggle to achieve both decoupled enhancement and balanced integration of these capabilities. To address these challenges, we propose Channel-of-Mobile-Experts (CoME), a novel agent architecture consisting of four distinct experts, each aligned with a specific reasoning stage, CoME activates the corresponding expert to generate output tokens in each reasoning stage via output-oriented activation. To empower CoME with hybrid-capabilities reasoning, we introduce a progressive training strategy: Expert-FT enables decoupling and enhancement of different experts' capability; Router-FT aligns expert activation with the different reasoning stage; CoT-FT facilitates seamless collaboration and balanced optimization across multiple capabilities. To mitigate error propagation in hybrid-capabilities reasoning, we propose InfoGain-Driven DPO (Info-DPO), which uses information gain to evaluate the contribution of each intermediate step, thereby guiding CoME toward more informative reasoning. Comprehensive experiments show that CoME outperforms dense mobile agents and MoE methods on both AITZ and AMEX datasets.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.