Multimodal models have demonstrated strong capabilities in web, desktop, and mobile GUI environments, but their performance in automotive cockpit systems remains largely unexplored. In-vehicle GUIs introduce unique challenges beyond traditional GUI interaction, including vehicle-state reasoning, implicit intent understanding, and safety-critical decision making. To address this gap, we introduce Automotive-ENV, an interactive benchmark for evaluating multimodal models in automotive cockpit environments. Built on Android Automotive OS, Automotive-ENV combines cockpit-screen interaction with vehicle-state signals and deterministic state-based evaluation. The benchmark contains 420 carefully constructed tasks covering routine cockpit operation and safety-critical scenarios. Unlike prior GUI benchmarks that rely on action matching or LLM-based judging, Automotive-ENV evaluates model behavior through reproducible validators over UI states, vehicle signals, and safety-related conditions. We benchmark representative general-purpose multimodal models and GUI-specialized vision-language models on Automotive-ENV. Experimental results show that current models remain far from reliable in automotive environments, with substantial performance degradation in implicit and safety-critical tasks. Further analysis reveals consistent failure modes in safety-aware reasoning, vehicle-control understanding, and implicit hazard recognition. We release Automotive-ENV, together with tasks, validators, and evaluation tools, to support future research on automotive multimodal systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Automotive-ENV , an interactive benchmark for multimodal GUI agents in automotive cockpit systems. The environment couples screen-level cockpit interaction with vehicle-state signals: each task specifies an instruction and setup, the agent acts through UI actions and optional vehicle-state queries, and validators score the final system state and task trace.
Dataset
Env
# Apps/Web
# Templates
Instances
Reward Method
Platform
GAIA
No
n/a
466
1
text-match
None
Mind2Web
No
137
2350
1
None
Desktop Web
WebLINX
No
155
2337
1
None
Desktop Web
WebVoyager
No
15
643
1
LLM judge
Desktop Web
PixelHelp
No
4
187
1
None
Android
MetaGUI
No
6
1125
1
None
Android
Table 1: Comparison of different datasets and environments for benchmarking computer agents.
Subset
#
Target
General Explicit
57
Direct control
General Implicit
83
Intent inference
Safety-Critical Explicit
80
Explicit hazard
Safety-Critical Implicit
200
Latent hazard
Total
420
–
Table 2: Task subsets in Automotive-ENV .
Figure 2: Task distributions across different dimensions. (a) Distribution between General and Safety-Critical tasks. (b) Difficulty distribution across Easy, Medium, and Hard tasks. (c) Distribution across different automotive cockpit functions.
Models
General
Safety-Critical
Efficiency
Explicit
Implicit
Explicit
Implicit
Time / Task (s)
Time / Step (s)
Steps
API-served models
Gemini 3 Flash
45.6
47.1
26.9
37.0
78.0
9.58
8.14
Kimi-K2.5 [ 36 ]
75.8
56.3
29.7
35.4
387.6
57.24
6.77
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B [ 30 ]
70.5
52.2
16.7
28.4
230.0
34.01
6.76
Locally served models
Table 3: Success rate (SR %) and runtime efficiency on Automotive-ENV .
Figure 3: Success rate comparison between General and Safety-Critical tasks. Scores are computed within each group and weighted by the number of tasks in the corresponding Explicit and Implicit subsets.
Figure 4: Success rate comparison across Easy, Medium, and Hard tasks. For readability, the figure visualizes representative models.
Figure 5: Missing implicit safety hazards failure example. The agent follows the user’s surface-level request to turn systems off and repeatedly manipulates HVAC controls, but does not recognize the heat hazard for a disabled passenger in the back seat.
Figure 6: Vehicle-context reasoning gap example: the agent clicks fan OFF and prematurely reports completion under active AUTO mode.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
OEM
Brands
General Motors
Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Buick
Honda
Honda
Mazda
Mazda
Polestar
Polestar
Renault Group
Renault, Alpine, Dacia
Volvo
Volvo
Appendix
Table 4: Automotive OEMs providing Android Automotive OS emulator system images.
Figure 7: Example annotated screenshot in Automotive-ENV. UI elements are marked with bounding boxes and indices for visual grounding.
Action Type
Description
click / double_tap / long_press
Touch a UI element by index or absolute screen coordinate.
scroll / swipe
Perform a directional gesture on the screen or target element.
input_text / keyboard_enter
Enter text or send an enter key event.
navigate_home / navigate_back
Execute standard Android home or back navigation.
open_app
Launch an installed application by name or package mapping.
query_vehicle
Query a task-relevant vehicle or sensor state.
Appendix
Table 5: Agent-facing action types supported by Automotive-ENV.
Task objective
Validation logic
Set the fan speed to off.
vhal_equals(HVAC_FAN_SPEED, 0)
Enable the rear defroster.
vhal_equals(REAR_DEFROST_ON, true)
This leather seat is cold from sitting out overnight.
vhal_equals(SEAT_HEAT, target)
Turn on the passenger seat heating to its highest setting and activate the front and rear defrost functions.
Autonomous agents capable of navigating Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) hold the potential to revolutionize digital productivity. However, achieving true digital autonomy extends beyond reactive element matching; it necessitates a predictive mental model of interface dynamics and the ability to foresee the "digital world state" resulting from interactions. Despite the perceptual capabilities of modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs), existing benchmarks remain bifurcated (focusing either on black-box task completion or static, shallow grounding), thereby failing to assess whether agents truly comprehend the implicit functionality and transition logic of GUIs. To bridge this gap, we introduce AutoGUI-v2, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate deep GUI functionality understanding and interaction outcome prediction. We construct the benchmark using a novel VLM-human collaborative pipeline that recursively parses multi-platform screenshots into hierarchical functional regions to generate diverse evaluation tasks. Providing 2,753 tasks across six operating systems, AutoGUI-v2 rigorously tests agents on region and element-level semantics, grounding, and dynamic state prediction. Our evaluation reveals a striking dichotomy in VLMs: while open-source models fine-tuned on agent data (e.g., Qwen3-VL) excel at functional grounding, commercial models (e.g., Gemini-2.5-Pro-Thinking) dominate in functionality captioning. Crucially, all models struggle with complex interaction logic of uncommon actions, highlighting that deep functional understanding remains a significant hurdle. By systematically measuring these foundational capabilities, AutoGUI-v2 offers a new lens for advancing the next generation of GUI agents.
Hongxin Li, Xiping Wang, Jingran Su +4
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS) · 2New Laboratory of Pattern Recognition (NLPR), CASIA · 3State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems (MAIS), CASIA +3
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have revolutionized GUI automation, yet their efficacy is largely established on idealized, single-layer interfaces. This paper identifies a critical reliability gap: state-of-the-art agents face distinct robustness challenges in real-world desktop environments characterized by multi-window stacking, occlusion, and visual clutter. To address this, we introduce WinDeskGround, a novel benchmark and synthesis framework tailored for evaluating GUI grounding robustness. Unlike static datasets, our framework parametrically generates complex desktop scenarios by controlling window occlusion, layout density, and semantic similarity, thereby simulating the distribution shifts of authentic workflows. We construct a diverse meta-dataset of 1,356 high-fidelity instruction-target pairs and conduct comprehensive evaluations of five leading MLLMs. Our results demonstrate that while top-tier agents excel in simplified settings, their accuracy declines under partial occlusion. WinDeskGround provides a valuable benchmark to facilitate the assessment and advancement of GUI agent robustness in realistic environments. The code is available at https://github.com/ZZZhr-1/WinDeskGround.
Haoren Zhao, Tianyi Chen, Zhen Wang
School of Cyberspace, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China · 2Microsoft
Multimodal Large Language Models have shown promising performance in computer-use tasks, from planning user workflows to grounding natural-language actions to precise UI targets. Existing end-to-end benchmarks primarily emphasize long-horizon task completion, while GUI grounding benchmarks remain focused on conventional controls and a limited set of professional interfaces. We introduce POINTERBENCH, a diagnostic suite of 1,500 screenshot-instruction pairs probing three complementary capabilities: thin sub-element identification and geometric grounding in spreadsheets (POINTERBENCH-Sheets), character-level grounding in long-text documents (POINTERBENCH-Text), and mixed GUI grounding across 100 professional applications (POINTERBENCH-Pro). We carefully curate each task with pixel-exact target geometry and evaluate both general-purpose multimodal models and 39 specialist GUI grounding configurations. We find text grounding to be the most challenging setting, with Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and the leading native specialist UI-Venus-2-9B achieving 69.6%, 53.4%, and 25.8% success on POINTERBENCH-Text despite respective 83.2%, 77.7%, and 54.5% average success across POINTERBENCH. These results reveal substantial headroom in fine-grained GUI grounding across frontier and specialist models. We publicly release the benchmark and evaluation code at https://github.com/warmwindOS/pointerbench.
Valentino Sacco, Saurabh Pandey, Alexander Florian Jercher +1