GUI grounding, which localizes interface elements from screenshots given natural language queries, remains challenging for small icons and dense layouts. Test-time zoom-in methods improve localization by cropping and re-running inference at higher resolution, but apply cropping uniformly across all instances with fixed crop sizes, ignoring whether the model is actually uncertain on each case. We propose UI-Zoomer, a training-free adaptive zoom-in framework that treats both the trigger and scale of zoom-in as a prediction uncertainty quantification problem. A confidence-aware gate fuses spatial consensus among stochastic candidates with token-level generation confidence to selectively trigger zoom-in only when localization is uncertain. When triggered, an uncertainty-driven crop sizing module decomposes prediction variance into inter-sample positional spread and intra-sample box extent, deriving a per-instance crop radius via the law of total variance. Extensive experiments on ScreenSpot-Pro, UI-Vision, and ScreenSpot-v2 demonstrate consistent improvements over strong baselines across multiple model architectures, achieving gains of up to +13.4%, +10.3%, and +4.2% respectively, with no additional training required.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of GUI grounding paradigms. (a) Direct grounding methods struggle with dense interfaces. (b) Iterative cropping methods incur large resource costs and use rigid cropping ratios. (c) Our UI-Zoomer applies Test-Time Scaling (TTS) with reliability gating, adaptively choosing between consensus voting and adaptive cropping, achieving stronger robustness with one-take time costs.
Method
Avg Acc
Time
w/o DiMo-GUI
81.84%
35:47
w/ DiMo-GUI
77.20%
6:43:07
Table 1: Accuracy and inference time of w/ and w/o iterative cropping on ScreenSpot-V2.
Figure 2: Overview of UI-Zoomer. (a) The model samples N candidate predictions via Test-Time Scaling (TTS). (b) A reliability gate routes confident instances to consensus voting (Choice I) and uncertain ones to adaptive cropping (Choice II). (d) The crop window is derived from 2D Gaussian variance decomposition, enabling per-instance adaptive zoom-in.
Benchmark
Methods
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Overall
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
ScreenSpot-v2
UI-Venus-7B
99.0
90.1
95.2
97.9
89.3
94.3
94.9
89.7
92.5
97.4
89.7
94.0
+ UI-Zoomer
98.6
90.5
95.2
99.0
92.9
96.4
95.7
90.6
93.4
97.8
91.2
94.9
Δ Improvement
-0.4
+0.4
+0.0
+1.1
+3.6
+2.1
+0.8
+0.9
+0.9
+0.4
+1.5
+0.9
UI-Vision
UI-Venus-7B
68.5
23.8
33.3
65.5
19.9
29.7
38.7
7.8
11.4
60.6
16.5
24.4
+ UI-Zoomer
80.5
32.3
42.5
74.7
30.6
40.1
55.9
15.1
19.7
72.7
25.2
33.7
Table 2: Performance of UI-Venus-7B with and without UI-Zoomer on ScreenSpot-v2 (Mobile / Desktop / Web) and UI-Vision (Basic / Functional / Spatial).
Methods
Development
Creative
CAD
Scientific
Office
OS
Overall
text
icon
text
icon
text
icon
text
icon
text
icon
text
icon
text
icon
avg
Proprietary Methods
GPT-4o Hurst et al. (2024)
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.8
Claude-3.7-Sonnet cla ()
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27.7
Seed-1.5-VL Guo et al. (2025)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60.9
General Open-source Models
Table 3: Performance comparison on ScreenSpot-Pro across four models: Qwen2.5-VL-7B, GUI-G 2 -7B, UI-Venus-7B, and UI-Venus-72B. For a fair comparison, RegionFocus is evaluated using Qwen2.5-VL-7B as the backbone.
Figure 3: Ablation on sampling temperature T (left) and number of candidates N (right) on ScreenSpot-Pro.
Table 7Table 8Table 9
Figure 4: Ablation study of the gating threshold τ and Gaussian spread σ on ScreenSpot-v2. Grey bars indicate the proportion of samples routed to the zoom-in cropping stage (CROP%), while blue curves show overall accuracy.
Figure 5: Histogram distributions of Cspatial and avg_conf on ScreenSpot-Pro ( N=1581 ). The two signals exhibit complementary distributional characteristics, enabling a more discriminative gating mechanism when combined.
Figure 6: Here are four representative cases: the top two are successful examples, while the remaining two illustrate failure cases. Blue boxes denote the eight sampled bounding boxes, red indicates the cropped region, green represents the ground-truth box, and yellow marks the final prediction obtained after zooming on the cropped image.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Complete prompt template used in our experiments.
Methods
Mobile
Desktop
Web
Overall
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
Proprietary Methods
GPT-4o Hurst et al. (2024)
-
-
22.5
-
-
22.2
-
-
12.4
-
-
20.1
Claude-3.7-Sonnet cla ()
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
87.6
Seed-1.5-VL Guo et al. (2025)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
95.2
General Open-source Models
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison on ScreenSpot-v2. We evaluate our UI-Zoomer strategy across three models: Qwen2.5-VL-7B, GUI-G 2 -7B, and UI-Venus-7B.
Methods
Basic
Functional
Spatial
Overall
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
text
icon
avg
Proprietary Methods
GPT-4o Hurst et al. (2024)
-
-
1.6
-
-
1.5
-
-
1.0
-
-
1.4
Claude-3.7-Sonnet cla ()
-
-
9.5
-
-
7.7
-
-
7.6
-
-
8.3
Seed-1.5-VL Guo et al. (2025)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
General Open-source Models
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison on UI-Vision. We evaluate our UI-Zoomer strategy across four models: Qwen2.5-VL-7B, GUI-G 2 -7B, UI-Venus-7B, and UI-Venus-72B .
Threshold ( τ )
Overall Acc
Gating Pass Branch
Crop Branch
Trigger Rate
Accuracy
Trigger Rate
Accuracy
0.6
57.56%
53.89%
70.66%
46.11%
42.24%
0.8
60.97%
22.77%
79.44%
77.23%
33.42%
0.9
61.48%
9.93%
82.80%
90.07%
59.13%
0.95
61.54%
5.57%
81.82%
94.43%
60.34%
1.0
61.80%
2.91%
93.48%
97.09%
60.85%
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation of the Gating Threshold ( τ ). These are the results of UI-Venus-7B on ScreenSpot Pro, with the hyperparameter σ is set to 2.5.
MLLM-based GUI grounding methods commonly formulate target localization as autoregressive coordinate generation, enabling models to leverage the strong instruction-following and semantic understanding capabilities of MLLMs. However, this formulation requires the model to retain region-level target evidence while decoding coordinate tokens with the spatial precision demanded by GUI clicking. Our diagnostic analysis reveals that target-region awareness emerges in intermediate decoder layers but is neither retained nor translated into the final coordinate prediction. Existing ZoomIn-style methods address this issue through an external crop-and-rerun pass, which improves localization but increases end-to-end latency and computational cost. To retain the accuracy benefits of two-pass zooming without this extra cost, we propose InnerZoom, a single-forward framework for cross-layer evidence bridging. InnerZoom transforms target-related cues from the original forward pass into a compact cross-layer evidence state, then preserves, refines, and reinjects this state throughout later decoding layers to guide coordinate prediction. Extensive experimental results suggest that InnerZoom-4B achieves state-of-the-art performance on all six GUI grounding benchmarks, obtaining 64.7 on OSWorld-G, 40.2 on UI-Vision, 73.1 on OSWorld-GR, and 87.6 on MMBench-GUI, surpassing the previous best results by 4.1, 3.2, 2.9, and 2.3 points, respectively. Under a controlled 4B setting, InnerZoom improves the same SFT+RL baseline by 5.3 points on average and outperforms two-pass ZoomIn by 1.3 points on average, while reducing end-to-end latency by up to 31.8% and TFLOPs by about 29%. Code and models will be publicly available.
Chen Liu, Ling Chen, Hanzhang Zhou +5
University of Technology Sydney · Tongyi Lab, Alibaba Group · Adelaide University
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
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have enabled autonomous GUI agents that translate natural language instructions into executable screen coordinates. However, grounding performance degrades in high-resolution interfaces, where dense layouts and small interactive elements expose a resolution gap between modern displays and model input constraints. Existing zoom-in strategies rely on fixed anchors, heuristic grids, or reinforcement learning, lacking a principled mechanism to adaptively determine where refinement is needed and how much spatial uncertainty should be explored. We propose AutoFocus, a training-free, uncertainty-aware active visual search framework for GUI grounding. Our key insight is that token-level perplexity in coordinate generation naturally reflects spatial uncertainty. Rather than committing to a single prediction, AutoFocus samples multiple coordinate hypotheses and converts their axial perplexities into an anisotropic gaussian spatial probability field, explicitly modeling directional uncertainty. Based on this field, we generate global and local region proposals and introduce Shape-Aware Zooming to balance tight localization with contextual preservation. A visual prompt-based aggregation step then selects the most consistent prediction via structured comparison. Extensive experiments on ScreenSpot-Pro and ScreenSpot-V2 demonstrate consistent improvements across both general-purpose and GUI-specialized VLMs.