The rise of autonomous GUI agents has triggered adversarial countermeasures from digital platforms, yet existing research prioritizes utility and robustness over the critical dimension of anti-detection. We argue that for agents to survive in human-centric ecosystems, they must evolve Humanization capabilities. We introduce the ``Turing Test on Screen,'' formally modeling the interaction as a MinMax optimization problem between a detector and an agent aiming to minimize behavioral divergence. We then collect a new high-fidelity dataset of mobile touch dynamics, and conduct our analysis that vanilla LMM-based agents are easily detectable due to unnatural kinematics. Consequently, we establish the Agent Humanization Benchmark (AHB) and detection metrics to quantify the trade-off between imitability and utility. Finally, we propose methods ranging from heuristic noise to data-driven behavioral matching, demonstrating that agents can achieve high imitability theoretically and empirically without sacrificing performance. This work shifts the paradigm from whether an agent can perform a task to how it performs it within a human-centric ecosystem, laying the groundwork for seamless coexistence in adversarial digital environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The adversarial landscape between GUI Agents and Mobile Platforms. The figure illustrates three key stages: (1) Main Conflicts: Adversarial interests lead platforms to deploy defenses such as login blocks and ad traps. (2) Turing Test on Screen: The core detection mechanism relies on distinguishing natural human trajectories from agent trajectories. (3) Agent Humanization: We propose an adversarial humanization task to transform raw agents into humanized agents by increasing their imitability to bypass detection while maintaining task accuracy.
Figure 2: The difference between human and agent swipe.
Figure 3: The visualization of action interval and tap duration differences between human and agents.
Task
Mode
Humanization Methods
Detection Rules
swipe
interval
tap
swipe
interval
tap
utility
b-spline
history
fake
long
max single
SVM acc
XGB acc
int.acc
tap.acc
task acc
Social Media
RAW
x
x
x
x
0.9969
0.9817
1.0000
0.8838
0.9977
0.4833
online
x
✓
x
✓
0.8286
0.8750
0.9773
0.8798
0.6341
0.5625
online
x
✓
x
x
0.7651
0.9756
1.0000
0.9060
0.9976
0.6667
online
x
✓
✓
✓
0.9998
0.9963
0.9993
0.5999
0.6210
0.4500
Table 1: Experiment results of humanization strategies across five distinct application domains. We compare the baseline (RAW) against various combinations of humanization methods, including swipe trajectory adjustment (B-spline vs. History Matching), interval noise injection (Fake), and tap duration adjustment (Long). The right block reports the detection accuracy (lower is better) of different classifiers SVM and XGBoost and rule-based checks, alongside the final Task Accuracy.
Figure 4: Impact of humanization on detection accuracy across feature clusters. The chart compares the detection accuracy of raw agent traces (light green) versus the minimum detectability achieved after applying humanization methods (dark green). The consistent drop in accuracy across most clusters demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed methods in evading detection.
Figure 5: Impact of Feature Selection on Detection Accuracy. Comparison of (a) SVM and (b) XGBoost performance as the number of features increases.
Metric
RAW
On.RM
Off.RM
BS
maxDev
0.9969
0.5515
0.6186
0.7556
meanResultantLength
0.9878
0.6818
0.6286
0.6979
ratio_end_to_len
0.9878
0.6451
0.5798
0.5826
duration
0.8583
0.6907
0.5470
0.8507
a20
0.8355
0.8286
0.7190
0.7686
acc_first5pct
0.8244
0.5897
0.5532
0.8093
Table 2: Comparison of single-feature and model-based detection accuracy for Social Media. Results show the classification accuracy for the Raw baseline versus Online Rotation & Match (On.RM), Offline Rotation & Match (Off.RM), and B-Spline (BS) methods. Features are ranked by their discriminative power on the raw dataset.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Doubao Mobile Assistant Working Scene on the Offical Website.
Figure 7: Sensor Events Visulization as Time Changes.
Figure 8: The Lengths and Durations of Each Action. Actions with ∣f∣<5 are considered taps.
Category
Motion Event
Sensor Event
Overall
Type
Sub-population
Tap
Swipe
Accel.
Gyro.
RotVec.
Grav.
LinAcc.
Mag.
Light
Prox.
Human
Young Man
5050
2186
4516935
4516491
4482116
4516352
4516349
1101702
5300
566
37,768,698
Young Woman
1706
786
1300213
1300038
1279412
1300018
1300012
314457
2544
182
Middle-aged
782
208
743043
742953
742922
742953
742952
182605
1314
86
Elderly
644
161
651490
651402
641091
651399
651396
157573
1225
84
Agent
UI-TARS
772
380
2,991,281
2,991,215
2,971,001
2,991,077
2,991,074
730,144
579
212
243,090,929
Appendix
Table 4: Dataset composition of humans and raw agents across motion and sensor events.
Category
Motion Event
Sensor Event
Overall
Type
Sub-population
Tap
Swipe
Accel.
Gyro.
RotVec.
Grav.
LinAcc.
Mag.
Light
Prox.
Humanized Agent (w/o fake action)
UI-TARS
1677
683
6357826
6357750
6318637
6357479
6357484
1552891
761
388
280,320,486
Mobile-Agent-E (GPT-4o)
1382
269
22018165
22018033
21964700
22017779
22017784
5397465
1354
401
Mobile-Agent-E (Claude-Sonnet)
675
46
12942360
12942301
12141290
12942167
12942158
2983499
2394
215
AgentCPM
1954
286
3583409
3583366
3583216
3583246
3583252
880616
420
174
AutoGLM
1797
348
8752376
8752336
8724506
8752198
8752196
2143920
632
225
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset composition of humanized agents with or without fake actions across motion and sensor events.
Variable Name
Full Description
Information Gain
Explanation
Velocity (Kinematics)
v20
20%-perc. pairwise velocity
0.4487
Speed at lower 20th percentile (slow phase).
v50
50%-perc. pairwise velocity
0.4491
Median velocity (typical speed).
v80
80%-perc. pairwise velocity
0.4750
Speed at 80th percentile (peak speed).
speed
average velocity
0.4238
Total distance divided by total duration.
v_last3_median
median velocity at last 3 pts
0.4796
Deceleration behavior near target.
Appendix
Table 6: Touch Dynamics Feature Descriptions with Information Gain (IG)
Figure 9: The correlation of these 24 features. Red color means stronger correlation.
Figure 10: Impact of Online Humanization on Task Utility. This chart compares the success rates of raw agents (light green) versus those employing various humanization strategies (darker and darker green).
Metric
Cluster 0: Social Media
Cluster 1: Shopping
Cluster 2: VideoStreaming
RAW
On.RM
Off.RM
BS
RAW
On.RM
Off.RM
BS
RAW
On.RM
Off.RM
BS
maxDev
0.9969
0.5515
0.6186
0.7556
0.9899
0.6231
0.7710
0.5379
0.9929
0.6636
0.7146
0.5026
meanResultantLength
0.9878
0.6818
0.6286
0.6979
0.9982
0.8556
0.8183
0.9336
1.0000
0.8700
0.8476
0.9003
ratio_end_to_len
0.9878
0.6451
0.5798
0.5826
0.9980
0.8556
0.8537
0.9002
1.0000
0.8447
0.8338
0.8476
duration
0.8583
0.6907
0.5470
0.8507
0.9209
0.7554
0.8351
0.9230
0.9175
0.7517
0.7560
0.9147
a20
0.8355
0.8286
0.7190
0.7686
0.9632
0.9249
0.8780
0.9309
0.9679
0.9494
0.9306
0.9390
Appendix
Table 7: Merged Results: Cluster 0 vs Cluster 1 vs Cluster 2
Metric
Cluster 3: Trip Planning
Cluster 4: Office & Learning
RAW
On.RM
Off.RM
BS
RAW
On.RM
Off.RM
BS
maxDev
0.9895
0.7188
0.6508
0.5629
1.0000
0.6347
0.5841
0.8178
meanResultantLength
0.9940
0.7806
0.7490
0.8479
1.0000
0.5181
0.5625
0.7720
ratio_end_to_len
0.9984
0.7573
0.7266
0.7830
1.0000
0.5294
0.5702
0.7366
duration
0.8601
0.7434
0.6696
0.8648
0.6159
0.5944
0.5052
0.6372
a20
0.9376
0.8153
0.8251
0.8855
0.8521
0.7204
0.7720
0.7543
Appendix
Table 8: Merged Results: Cluster 3 vs Cluster 4
Figure 11: Validation of interval mimicry using fake actions. The figure compares the normalized action interval distributions of the original human dataset (red) against four GUI agents (UI-Tars, Mobile-Agent-E, AgentCPM-GUI, Open-AutoGLM) augmented with offline fake actions and combined agents augmented with online fake actions. The significant overlap indicates that the proposed method successfully replicates the temporal distribution patterns of human behavior.
Figure 12: Distribution analysis of trajectory deviation. We compare the distribution of the maxDev feature for humans versus non-humanized agents. While human data follows a wide distribution reflecting natural motor variability, agent data is concentrated in a singular impulse near zero, confirming the linearity of algorithmically generated paths without humanization.
GUI agents today assume a static screen, where the world is frozen between two actions. However, real interfaces such as short-video applications violate this assumption, as their content keeps playing, and a competent user must decide what to watch and for how long. We formalize this task as Living-Screen-Native GUI agents and introduce LivingScreen, the first benchmark instantiating it on short-video platforms, with a faithful browser-based environment, a three-tier task suite, and metrics that jointly score accuracy and information efficiency. Evaluating extensive frontier models, we find that none reaches the human cost-accuracy performance, and that their dominant failure mode is over- and under-observation, pointing to observation control as a missing capability axis for future GUI agents. All data and code will be available at https://github.com/BITHLP/LivingScreen.
Jiashu Yao, Heyan Huang, Daiqing Wu +5
Beijing Institute of Technology · Tsinghua University · Beihang University
As large multimodal models move from understanding content to operating on digital environments, mobile GUI has emerged as a challenging and consequential testbed for digital embodied intelligence. Mobile agents operate under three coupled constraints: precise perception of complex interfaces, scalable acquisition of high-quality interaction data, and robust long-horizon decision making under compounding execution errors. This report presents HyMobileAgent, a mobile GUI agent built on Hy3.0-VL-A3B, a vision-native foundation model featuring native any-resolution input, an A3B-scale deployment budget, and a 32K context window to model extended interaction histories. Rather than relying solely on model scaling, we develop a joint data and environment centric scaling framework to address the key bottlenecks of mobile interaction. Our framework integrates a GUI perception flywheel combining mock-interface synthesis, rejection sampling, and icon-specific augmentation; a knowledge pipeline that transforms tutorial videos into structured interaction data; a million-scale action data pipeline deployed across more than 2000 sandbox and real-device instances with automated failure attribution; the PhoneWorld Mock App Factory, providing a resettable training environment with 34 mock applications and over 34000 tasks; and a structured Planning-and-Reflection mechanism with explicit dead-loop detection for reliable long-horizon execution. We also introduce a progressive training recipe consisting of mid-training, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning with task-specific reward designs.
GUI agents often encounter dynamic anomalies when deployed on Android devices, from unexpected pop-ups to action misuse, yet existing benchmarks lack systematic evaluation of agent robustness against runtime anomalies. We introduce AnTrap, a comprehensive benchmark that injects dynamic perturbations into agent execution trajectories. We propose a taxonomy organizing real-world anomalies into four layers (State, Thinking, Action and Round) with ten fine-grained subcategories, and develop a construction pipeline that preserves task solvability while introducing realistic adversarial conditions. Evaluating 16 leading GUI models, we reveal universal vulnerability to dynamic anomalies, with even the strongest models suffering significant performance degradation. Furthermore, we conduct GRPO training in both original and adversarial environments to validate our benchmark, separating environment-learnable anomalies from reasoning-bottlenecked ones. Our findings show that while single-step traps at state and action layers are largely addressable through adversarial reinforcement learning, deep contextual traps, like state deadlock, expose intrinsic limitations that cannot be resolved by training in environments with traps alone.
Guo Gan, Yilun Zhao, Cong Chen +5
Zhejiang University · Yale University · Tongji University