Computer Use Agents (CUAs) fundamentally rely on graphical user interface (GUI) grounding to translate language instructions into executable screen actions, but editing-level grounding in dense coding interfaces (such as VS Code and Cursor), where sub-pixel accuracy is required to interact with dense IDE elements, remains underexplored. Existing approaches typically rely on single-shot coordinate prediction, which lacks a mechanism for error correction and often fails in high-density interfaces. In this technical report, we conduct an empirical study of pixel-precise cursor localization in coding environments. Instead of a single-step execution, our agent engages in an iterative refinement process, utilizing visual feedback from previous attempts to reach the target element. This closed-loop grounding mechanism allows the agent to self-correct displacement errors and adapt to dynamic UI changes. We evaluate our approach across Claude, Qwen, and GPT on a suite of complex coding benchmarks, demonstrating that multi-turn refinement significantly outperforms state-of-the-art single-shot models in both click precision and overall task success rate. Our results suggest that iterative visual reasoning is a critical component for the next generation of reliable software engineering agents. Code: https://github.com/microsoft/precision-cua-bench/tree/main.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Data collection system overview. A process-separated architecture connects the editor extension host (VS Code or Cursor) with the renderer DOM through a localhost WebSocket channel: the extension iterates over symbolic cursor stops and the renderer-side payload measures the corresponding pixel geometry via getBoundingClientRect() inside requestAnimationFrame . The synchronized records are written to JSONL with screen-absolute coordinates and editor metadata. Because both editors share the Electron+Monaco stack, the same pipeline produces directly comparable records across them.
Accuracy (%) ↑
D bb (px) ↓
D c (px) ↓
Prompt
Model
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Baseline
Qwen 3.5 9B
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
272.0
266.6
266.3
265.2
264.9
284.0
278.0
277.5
276.5
276.1
GPT-5.4-Pro
13.5
25.3
32.2
37.0
41.0
185.2
216.4
220.2
235.2
255.8
195.3
224.4
225.5
240.8
261.4
Claude Opus 4.7
21.0
31.0
37.5
42.0
45.4
292.4
327.6
360.1
388.1
411.8
301.0
336.7
368.4
396.4
420.3
Baseline CoT
Qwen 3.5 9B
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.6
450.3
437.4
451.0
445.5
445.1
459.5
444.0
457.2
451.4
450.2
GPT-5.4-Pro
11.1
25.8
33.0
37.5
41.2
181.5
230.2
234.6
252.0
257.5
191.6
237.5
240.6
258.2
262.8
Table 1: Multi-turn grounding results. Accuracy (%), point-to-bounding-box distance (D bb , px) and point-to-center distance (D c , px) across five refinement turns (T1–T5) for each of the four system-prompt variants and the three evaluated models (Qwen-3.5-9B, Claude Opus 4.7, and GPT-5.4-Pro). Each cell is averaged over the full 5,390-sample benchmark, spanning both editors (VS Code, Cursor) and both themes (Dark, Light). Higher is better for accuracy; lower is better for distances. Distances are reported under cumulative semantics and therefore aggregate over the residual unresolved subset at each turn (Section 4.2 ).
Character Acc. (%) ↑
Word Acc. (%) ↑
Line Acc. (%) ↑
Prompt
Model
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Baseline
Qwen 3.5 9B
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
9.5
10.0
10.4
10.5
10.9
GPT-5.4-Pro
3.5
9.3
15.8
21.9
27.2
28.5
49.8
59.0
62.1
64.3
36.9
62.4
67.7
69.1
70.4
Claude Opus 4.7
6.9
16.9
26.1
32.6
37.4
41.0
56.1
57.6
58.4
59.0
56.9
59.3
60.7
61.7
62.3
Baseline CoT
Qwen 3.5 9B
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
9.7
13.3
14.4
14.9
16.4
GPT-5.4-Pro
3.5
11.0
18.3
23.7
28.1
20.9
48.3
56.7
59.8
62.5
31.7
60.6
65.9
68.3
70.2
Table 2: Multi-turn element-wise grounding accuracy. Accuracy (%) decomposed by target granularity (character, word, and line) across five refinement turns (T1–T5) for the four system-prompt variants and the three evaluated models (Qwen-3.5-9B, Claude Opus 4.7, and GPT-5.4-Pro). Computed on the full 5,390-sample benchmark (3,518 character, 1,092 word, 780 line), matching Table 1 . Higher is better.
Overall localization (Accuracy ↑ , D bb↓ , D c↓ )
Accuracy (%) ↑
D bb (px) ↓
D c (px) ↓
Prompt
IDE
Theme
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Baseline
VS Code
Dark
34.6
51.1
61.4
67.9
73.1
23.0
11.7
12.3
13.9
16.3
25.4
13.5
14.2
16.1
18.4
Light
35.4
49.3
59.5
66.2
71.1
23.0
13.1
12.5
14.4
16.4
25.8
15.3
14.7
16.5
18.7
Cursor
Dark
6.9
11.0
14.3
17.1
19.0
475.3
495.8
513.5
531.4
543.5
487.5
509.2
524.0
540.8
553.0
Light
8.3
13.8
16.2
18.7
20.2
475.5
505.7
520.0
534.6
545.1
488.6
518.3
531.9
546.7
556.6
Table 3: Cross-editor and cross-theme analysis for Claude Opus 4.7. We stratify the evaluation set by editor (VS Code, Cursor) and color theme (Dark, Light) and report multi-turn results (T1–T5) for each of the four system-prompt variants. The top block reports overall localization (accuracy, point-to-bounding-box distance over incorrect predictions, point-to-center distance over incorrect predictions); the bottom block reports element-wise accuracy at character, word, and line granularities. All accuracies are cumulative over turns.
Table 4: Comparison against specialized GUI grounding baselines ( GUI-Actor Wu et al. (2025) and GUI-G2 Tang et al. (2025) , evaluated single-turn) and against general-purpose vision-language models (Qwen-3.5-9B and Claude Opus 4.7, reported at the end of the five-turn refinement protocol). The lightweight in-domain finetune of GTA1 Yang et al. (2025) attains the strongest overall accuracy and the lowest residual distance, with the largest gain at the character granularity, indicating that targeted task-specific supervision is an effective lever for fine-grained text-cursor grounding.
Graphical User Interface (GUI) grounding requires mapping natural language instructions to precise pixel coordinates. However, due to visually homogeneous elements and dense layouts, models typically grasp semantic intent yet struggle with achieving precise localization. While scaling sampling attempts (Pass@k) reveals potential gains, static self-consistency strategies derived from geometric clustering often yield limited improvements, as the model's predictions tend to be spatially dispersed. In this paper, we propose replacing static consistency strategies with a learnable selection mechanism that selects the optimal target by critiquing its own proposals rendered on the screenshot. Given the significant disparity between the model's grounding and critiquing capabilities, we propose a co-evolving Propose-then-Critic framework. To jointly optimize these, we introduce a maturity-aware adaptive co-evolutionary reinforcement learning paradigm. This approach dynamically balances the training objectives of proposer and critic, where the diversity of the proposer's outputs enhances critic robustness, while the critic's maturing discrimination capability conversely unlocks the proposer's potential for extensive spatial exploration, fostering the mutual reinforcement and co-evolution of both capabilities, thereby ensuring generalizability to adapt to diverse and complex interface layouts. Extensive experiments over 6 benchmarks show that our method significantly enhances both grounding accuracy and critic reliability.
Wenkai Wang, Xiyun Li, Hongcan Guo +5
Zhejiang University · Tencent AI Lab · The University of Hong Kong
Recent advances in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in web UI generation. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on single-turn full-page generation from scratch, overlooking the iterative workflow of real-world frontend engineering, where developers repeatedly reconstruct missing regions and modify localized elements within existing codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce MT-Web2Code, the first multimodal coding benchmark for multi-turn Macro-Level Regional Reconstruction and Micro-Level Localized Modification, which contains 102 tasks spanning 16 vertical domains. To construct deterministic repair trajectories without costly turn-level human annotation, we develop a scalable Reverse-Corruption Trajectory Engine that iteratively injects structural and stylistic defects into golden pages. We further propose a dual-axis evaluation protocol that measures target-region fidelity and the preservation of unaffected content, where regional reconstruction is assessed by a 5-dimensional VLM-based rubric and localized modification by deterministic pixel-grounded alignment. Experiments on 13 frontier coding agents reveal that current agents struggle to faithfully reconstruct target regions while preserving unaffected content, lack fine-grained visual-code alignment for localized edits, and suffer from error snowballing over multiple turns. Beyond benchmarking, our deterministic evaluation metrics provide fine-grained feedback signals that may facilitate future research on training iterative UI coding agents. Our evaluation code and data will soon be released.
Qiming Li, Shujie Hu, Haohan Liu +3
1Harbin Institute of Technology · 2Meituan, Longcat Team · 3Peng Cheng Laboratory
GUI grounding maps natural-language instructions to click locations and is essential for reliable GUI agents. The task remains difficult on high-resolution, densely populated interfaces because a vision-language model (VLM) may recognize a requested control without locating it precisely enough for interaction. Most existing methods provide various forms of localization assistance, but still rely on a direct click prediction, allowing visual ambiguity or an inaccurate initial estimate to propagate to the final result. In this paper, we introduce GUI-Lens, a coarse-to-fine grounding framework that allows a general-purpose VLM to determine the target through active visual observations. Specifically, GUI-Lens extracts OCR text and detected UI components from the screenshot and presents their positions as coordinate references. Using the instruction, the current view, and these references, the VLM selects the region and scale of the next view, which is cropped and enlarged to provide finer visual details. This process continues over successively focused views until the target is determined. Proposed crops and clicks are checked against the instruction throughout the process, and the final local position is mapped back to the original screen coordinates. Experiments on four GUI grounding benchmarks and three general-purpose VLM backends show that GUI-Lens improves overall grounding accuracy by up to 24.9 percentage points and achieves state-of-the-art performance with GPT-5.5.
Zichuan Fu, Shirong Wang, Wenlin Zhang +10
City University of Hong Kong · Westlake University · Tencent Jarvis Lab