Zoom to Essence: Trainless GUI Grounding by Inferring upon Interface Elements
Authors: Ziwei Liu, Tao Feng, Borui Kang, Yanbing Yang, Jun Luo
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Technology, Sichuan University, China · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, China · School of Computer Science, Nanjing University, China · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents develop rapidly, with visual grounding that maps natural language instructions to target UI elements serving as the core capability. Existing GUI agents typically fine-tune MLLM on massive datasets to handle challenges in understanding instructions and UI interfaces, which not only incurs high data annotation costs but also makes performance dependent on data quality and distribution. To avoid such cumbersome yet ineffective training, we notice that complex UI interfaces can be decomposed into basic visual elements directly understandable by common MLLMs. Consequently, we propose ZoomUI that leverages inference scaling to guide common MLLMs in progressively anchor instruction elements to increasingly detailed interface elements. Specifically, ZoomUI first optimizes the latent thinking to transform original instruction into element visual features description, and subsequently leverages internal attention to iteratively zoom in target element interface region. Evaluations on extensive benchmarks demonstrate that ZoomUI reaches or even surpasses SOTA baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance comparisons of ZoomUI and other SOTA baseline methods.
Figure 2: Overview Workflow. ZoomUI initiates by refining the original instruction to a visual features description of element. Subsequently, by capturing attention distribution during coordinate generation phase, it iteratively zooms into relevant regions to obtain more a fine-grained interface of target UI element.
Figure 3: Instruction Refinement. We introduce learnable thought vectors injected in the interface and prompt embeddings. These vectors are iteratively optimized by maximizing the likelihood of the output logits via gradient ascent, which steers the latent representations to generate more reliable refined instructions.
Figure 4: Attention-Guided Visual Focus. We capture the attention distribution on the UI interface during the coordinate prediction phase. By iteratively cropping and upscaling a region with the highest attention scores, we progressively narrow target element region to enhance final grounding performance.
Model
Data Size
CAD
Dev.
Creative
Scientific
Office
OS
Avg.
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Proprietary Model
GPT-4o [ 28 ]
-
2.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
Claude C. [ 1 ]
-
14.5
3.7
22.0
3.9
25.9
3.4
33.9
15.8
30.1
16.3
11.0
4.5
17.1
Fine-Tuning based GUI Agents
Qwen2.5-VL-3B [ 2 ]
-
9.1
7.3
22.1
1.4
26.8
2.1
38.2
7.3
33.9
15.1
10.3
1.1
16.1
Table 1: Performance comparison on the ScreenSpot-Pro benchmark. Bold and underline represents the best and second results, respectively.
Model
Data Size
Text
Elem
Layout
Manip
Refuse
Avg.
Proprietary Model
Gemini-2.5-Pro [ 8 ]
-
59.8
45.5
49.0
33.6
38.9
45.2
Operator [ 27 ]
-
51.3
42.4
46.6
31.5
0.0
40.6
Fine-Tuning based GUI Agents
Qwen2.5-VL-3B [ 2 ]
-
41.4
28.8
34.8
13.4
0.0
27.3
Qwen2.5-VL-7B [ 2 ]
-
45.6
32.7
41.9
18.1
0.0
31.4
Table 2: Performance comparison on OSWorld-G . Bold and underline represents the best and second results, respectively.
Model
Data Size
Grouped by Category
Grouped by Setting
Avg.
Edu.
Browser
Dev.
Prod.
Creative
Entert.
Basic
Func.
Spatial
Proprietary Model
GPT-4o [ 28 ]
-
1.5
0.0
2.2
1.1
0.8
4.2
1.6
1.5
1.0
1.4
Claude [ 1 ]
-
6.1
9.8
8.0
9.4
7.7
8.3
9.5
7.7
7.6
8.3
Fine-Tuning based GUI Agents
Qwen-2.5VL-7B [ 2 ]
-
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.9
0.5
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.9
Table 3: Performance comparison on the UI-Vision benchmark. Bold and underline represents the best and second results, respectively.
Model
Data Size
Windows
MacOS
Linux
iOS
Android
Web
Avg.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Proprietary Model
GPT-4o [ 28 ]
-
1.5
1.1
8.7
4.3
1.1
1.0
5.1
3.3
2.5
1.4
3.2
2.9
2.9
Claude [ 1 ]
-
1.5
0.7
12.5
7.5
1.1
0.0
13.7
10.6
1.4
1.4
3.2
2.3
4.7
Fine-Tuning based GUI Agents
ShowUI-2B [ 19 ]
256K
9.2
4.4
24.1
10.4
25.1
11.7
29.0
19.7
17.4
8.7
22.9
12.7
16.0
Table 4: Performance comparison on MMBench-GUI benchmarks. Bold and underline represents the best and second results, respectively.
ScreenSpot-Pro
CAD
Dev.
Creative
Scientific
Office
OS
Avg.
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
ZoomUI-3B
47.72
20.3
52.6
18.6
45.5
14.0
52.8
25.5
62.2
37.7
54.2
22.5
40.2
ZoomUI-7B
59.9
25.0
64.9
30.3
56.6
23.1
67.4
31.8
81.4
43.4
67.3
34.8
52.2
ZoomUI-3B
w/o Refinement
20.8
3.1
16.9
5.5
18.2
5.6
29.9
5.5
24.9
3.8
18.7
10.1
15.5
ZoomUI-7B
Table 5: Instruction refinement ablation study on the ScreenSpot-Pro and UI-Vision benchmark. The gray are main results for reference.
ScreenSpot-Pro
CAD
Dev.
Creative
Scientific
Office
OS
Avg.
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
ZoomUI-3B
47.72
20.3
52.6
18.6
45.5
14.0
52.8
25.5
62.2
37.7
54.2
22.5
40.2
ZoomUI-7B
59.9
25.0
64.9
30.3
56.6
23.1
67.4
31.8
81.4
43.4
67.3
34.8
52.2
ZoomUI-3B
w/o VF
17.3
4.7
16.2
1.4
28.3
4.9
35.4
10.9
29.9
15.1
11.2
4.5
16.9
ZoomUI-7B
Table 6: Visual focus ablation study on the ScreenSpot-Pro and UI-Vision benchmark. The gray are main results for reference.
Figure 5: Performance variance with different settings under four benchmarks.
Figure 6: Visualization comparison between prefill and generation phase of capturing attention distribution. (a) is UI interface with instruction: “Like the QwQ-32b-preview on huggingface within the virtual android machine”, red block represents the ground truth region. Yellow blocks in attention maps of (b) and (c) are zoom-in regions refer to the highest attention scores.
Benchmark
Prefill
Generation
ScreenSpot-Pro
18.1 ↓
52.8
OSWorld-G
10.2 ↓
54.2
UI-Vision
7.6 ↓
27.1
MMBench-GUI
17.3 ↓
72.8
Table 7: Performance comparison across different attention capture phases.
Figure 1: Parameter sensitivity of instruction refinement across four benchmarks.
Figure 2: Visualization comparison. (a) is a UI interface with instruction: “Check Stats of NFL teams”, red block represents the ground truth region. Yellow blocks in attention maps of (b) and (c) are zoom-in regions that refer to the highest attention scores.
Figure 3: Visualization comparison. (a) is a UI interface with instruction: “Close the information prompt about personalizing your fitness dashboard”, red block represents the ground truth region. Yellow blocks in attention maps of (b) and (c) are zoom-in regions that refer to the highest attention scores.
Figure 4: Visualization comparison. (a) is a UI interface with instruction: “Refreshes changelists from revision control provider”, red block represents the ground truth region. Yellow blocks in attention maps of (b) and (c) are zoom-in regions that refer to the highest attention scores.
Model
Data Size
CAD
Dev.
Creative
Scientific
Office
OS
Avg.
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Reference Results
ZoomUI-3B
0
47.7
20.3
52.6
18.6
45.5
14.0
52.8
25.5
62.2
37.7
54.2
22.5
40.2
ZoomUI-7B
0
59.9
25.0
64.9
30.3
56.6
23.1
67.4
31.8
81.4
43.4
67.3
34.8
52.8
Alternative Backbones
ZoomUI-4B
0
63.9
25.0
70.8
34.5
62.1
23.1
74.3
39.1
76.8
47.1
71.0
46.1
55.9
Table 1: Performance evaluation on the ScreenSpot-Pro benchmark using alternative MLLM backbones. The top block provides results in main paper for reference. The bottom block details performance of advanced MLLMs. Bold indicates the best result.
Model
Data Size
Text
Elem
Layout
Manip
Refuse
Avg.
Reference Results
ZoomUI-3B
0
53.3
46.4
44.3
36.4
0.4
49.9
ZoomUI-7B
0
57.9
55.2
55.7
43.0
1.1
54.2
Alternative Backbones
ZoomUI-4B
0
66.4
57.9
61.7
48.3
5.6
58.3
ZoomUI-8B
0
70.8
68.6
66.1
52.3
0
61.1
Table 2: Performance evaluation on the OSWorld-G benchmark using alternative MLLM backbones. Bold indicates the best result.
Model
Data Size
Grouped by Category
Grouped by Setting
Avg.
Edu.
Browser
Dev.
Prod.
Creative
Entert.
Basic
Func.
Spatial
Reference Results
ZoomUI-3B
0
23.0
33.1
18.9
19.0
13.2
40.0
24.5
19.1
6.7
18.5
ZoomUI-7B
0
33.2
43.7
31.4
27.9
19.0
49.3
33.3
29.1
14.0
27.1
Alternative Backbones
ZoomUI-4B
0
37.6
44.9
31.3
31.0
20.9
46.7
35.7
31.1
14.1
29.1
Table 3: Performance evaluation on the UI-Vision benchmark using alternative MLLM backbones. Bold indicates the best result.
Model
Data Size
Windows
MacOS
Linux
iOS
Android
Web
Avg.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Reference Results
ZoomUI-3B
0
65.1
43.1
71.4
48.0
75.9
38.3
77.9
70.4
76.9
70.5
65.0
62.9
63.2
ZoomUI-7B
0
73.6
49.6
77.6
60.8
78.5
47.7
75.3
78.2
76.6
79.9
75.4
69.9
72.8
Alternative Backbones
ZoomUI-4B
0
77.0
65.7
77.9
61.4
82.3
54.5
81.5
83.4
83.8
83.9
82.1
72.4
75.4
Table 4: Performance evaluation on the MMBench-GUI benchmark using alternative MLLM backbones. Bold indicates the best result.
Graphical user interface (GUI) grounding is a key capability for computer-use agents, mapping natural-language instructions to actionable regions on the screen. Existing Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) approaches typically formulate GUI grounding as a text-based coordinate generation task. However, directly generating precise coordinates from visual inputs is challenging and often data-intensive. A more intuitive strategy is to first identify instruction-relevant visual patches and then determine the exact click location within them. Motivated by recent observations that general MLLMs exhibit native grounding ability embedded in their attention maps, we propose GUI-AIMA, an attention-based and coordinate-free supervised fine-tuning framework for efficient GUI grounding. GUI-AIMA aligns the intrinsic multimodal attention of MLLMs with patch-wise grounding signals. These signals are calculated adaptively for diverse user instructions by multi-head aggregation on simplified query-visual attention matrices. Besides, its coordinate-free manner can easily integrate a plug-and-play zoom-in stage. GUI-AIMA-3B was trained with only 509k samples (around 101k screenshots), demonstrating exceptional data efficiency and verifying that light training can trigger the native grounding capability of MLLMs. It achieves state-of-the-art performance among 3B models, attaining an average accuracy of 61.5% on ScreenSpot-Pro, 92.1% on ScreenSpot-v2, 68.1% on OSWorld-G, 79.1% on MMBench-GUI-L2, and 60.0% on UI-Vision. Project page: https://github.com/sjz5202/GUI-AIMA .
GUI grounding is a critical capability for vision-language models (VLMs) that enables automated interaction with graphical user interfaces by locating target elements from natural language instructions. However, grounding on GUI screenshots remains challenging due to high-resolution images, small UI elements, and ambiguous user instructions. In this work, we propose AdaZoom-GUI, an adaptive zoom-based GUI grounding framework that improves both localization accuracy and instruction understanding. Our approach introduces an instruction refinement module that rewrites natural language commands into explicit and detailed descriptions, allowing the grounding model to focus on precise element localization. In addition, we design a conditional zoom-in strategy that selectively performs a second-stage inference on predicted small elements, improving localization accuracy while avoiding unnecessary computation and context loss on simpler cases. To support this framework, we construct a high-quality GUI grounding dataset and train the grounding model using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), enabling the model to predict both click coordinates and element bounding boxes. Experiments on public benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance among models with comparable or even larger parameter sizes, highlighting its effectiveness for high-resolution GUI understanding and practical GUI agent deployment.
Siqi Pei, Liang Tang, Tiaonan Duan +9
Lenovo Research, Beijing, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
GUI agents powered by Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in understanding and executing user instructions. However, accurately grounding instruction-relevant elements from high-resolution screenshots cluttered with irrelevant UI components remains challenging for existing approaches. Inspired by how humans dynamically adjust their perceptual scope to locate task-related regions on complex screens, we propose DRS-GUI, a training-free dynamic region search framework for GUI grounding that can be seamlessly integrated into existing MLLMs. DRS-GUI introduces a lightweight UI Perceptor that performs three human-like perceptual actions (Focus, Shift, and Scatter) to progressively explore the interface and generate region proposals. To dynamically schedule these actions, we further design an Action Planner based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). A region quality reward is employed to evaluate and select the highly instruction-relevant region, efficiently pruning redundant UI elements. Experiments demonstrate that DRS-GUI yields a 14% improvement on ScreenSpot-Pro for general and GUI-specific MLLMs (Qwen2.5-VL-7B and UGround-V1-7B), significantly enhancing grounding performance and generalization.
Yichao Liu, Huawen Shen, Liu Yu +3
1Nankai University · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences