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.