GUI grounding evaluations that expose UI elements as text metadata often treat high instruction-element embedding similarity as evidence of semantic grounding. Across three mobile and web benchmarks, we show that this interpretation is frequently confounded by visible-label recovery. Lexical baselines remain competitive at top-1, label-poor targets remain weak for text-only methods, and encoder top-1 hits are predictable from lexical rank, candidate-pool size, and label type. We evaluate each action as a same-screen ranking task, comparing five off-the-shelf single-vector encoders with lexical baselines. Encoders recover some lexical misses, but deployable fusion gains are much smaller than target-aware oracle gains. These findings show that embedding-based evaluations can conflate visible-label recovery with semantic GUI grounding. Embedding-based evaluations should therefore report lexical baselines, label-type stratification, and deployable-fusion diagnostics. Our released repository provides analysis scripts and detexted per-step panels: https://github.com/qijia123/lexical-coupling-release.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the measurement audit. (A) Text-metadata GUI grounding is treated as same-screen candidate ranking given an instruction. (B) High instruction–element embedding similarity may reflect visible-label overlap rather than semantic grounding. (C) We compare off-the-shelf single-vector encoders against lexical controls and diagnose the results with label-type stratification, target-text dependence perturbation, LCC, and ESH.
Figure 2: Paired ΔR@1 of each sentence-embedding retriever versus BM25 on the three corpora. Error bars are 95% cluster-bootstrap CIs by episode or annotation_id .
Retriever
R@1
R@5
R@10
MRR
Random
0.022
0.107
0.212
0.089
Jaccard
0.547
0.703
0.741
0.624
BM25
0.557
0.707
0.742
0.632
MiniLM
0.489
0.709
0.768
0.592
MPNet
0.467
0.716
0.783
0.583
BGE-large
0.520
0.724
0.785
0.616
Table 1: Target-ranking metrics on the clean-main subset ( n=32,646 ).
type
n
Rand.
Jacc.
BM25
Mini
MPNet
BGE
E5
Qwen3
text-only
21,539
0.023
0.612
0.624
0.520
0.504
0.563
0.552
0.507
both
2,668
0.016
0.531
0.530
0.548
0.398
0.549
0.484
0.504
cd-only
8,441
0.023
0.386
0.396
0.392
0.397
0.402
0.401
0.407
resource-only
9,669
0.018
0.063
0.064
0.085
0.085
0.099
0.095
0.124
pseudo
2,629
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
none
13,132
0.027
0.013
0.013
0.016
0.011
0.006
0.006
0.020
Table 2: R@1 by target label-type on all DB rows. Best non-random per row in bold.
MoTIF ( n=4,724 )
Mind2Web ( n=5,941 )
Retriever
R@1
R@5
R@10
MRR
R@1
R@5
R@10
MRR
Random
0.022
0.131
0.262
0.101
0.005
0.020
0.036
0.022
Jaccard
0.217
0.386
0.483
0.314
0.039
0.115
0.177
0.088
BM25
0.224
0.391
0.503
0.320
0.041
0.125
0.195
0.094
MiniLM
0.216
0.458
0.631
0.342
0.045
0.116
0.165
0.090
MPNet
0.180
0.459
0.633
0.316
0.035
0.091
0.135
0.073
Table 3: Cross-corpus target-ranking metrics on MoTIF and Mind2Web. Bold marks the best non-random value in each metric column.
LCC
Corpus
n
BM25
BGE
E5
Qwen3
MPNet
Mini
ESH or
AC main
32,646
0.557
0.880
0.882
0.860
0.834
0.856
+0.070
MoTIF
4,724
0.224
0.845
0.874
0.851
0.825
0.868
+0.064
M2W all
5,941
0.041
0.867
0.861
0.845
0.844
0.849
+0.027
M2W rich
5,467
0.044
0.855
0.849
0.835
0.839
0.836
+0.029
Table 4: Cross-corpus LCC and oracle ESH. BM25 is R@1 ; ESH or is ESHoracle (BM25 + BGE).
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Encoder
ΔR@1 [95% CI]
Δ MRR [95% CI]
MiniLM
+0.068 [ +0.063,+0.073 ]
+0.040 [ +0.037,+0.044 ]
MPNet
+0.090 [ +0.085,+0.096 ]
+0.049 [ +0.044,+0.053 ]
BGE-large
+0.037 [ +0.033,+0.042 ]
+0.016 [ +0.012,+0.019 ]
E5-large
+0.050 [ +0.045,+0.055 ]
+0.029 [ +0.025,+0.032 ]
Qwen3-Emb.
+0.076 [ +0.071,+0.082 ]
+0.055 [ +0.051,+0.059 ]
Appendix
Table 5: Paired cluster-bootstrap deltas of BM25 over each encoder on clean-main ( n=32,646 ; B=2000 by episode_id ). Positive favours BM25; all CIs exclude zero.
Figure 3: Per-cell R@1 on AndroidControl (all DB rows, n=58,078 ; six-way label-type partition), MoTIF (all steps, n=22,427 ; four-way partition: text-only, resource-only, pseudo, none), and Mind2Web (all test splits, n=5,941 ; five-way label-type partition).
Method
Orig.
Masked
Δ [95% CI]
BM25
0.508
0.125
−0.383 [ −0.402,−0.364 ]
MiniLM
0.487
0.165
−0.321 [ −0.343,−0.300 ]
MPNet
0.434
0.139
−0.296 [ −0.316,−0.275 ]
BGE-large
0.503
0.188
−0.315 [ −0.336,−0.294 ]
E5-large
0.470
0.159
−0.311 [ −0.330,−0.291 ]
Qwen3-Emb.
0.466
0.251
−0.216 [ −0.237,−0.196 ]
Appendix
Table 6: Target-text dependence on an equal-allocation stratified AndroidControl clean-main sample ( n=3,000 ; 1,000 per label stratum). Negative deltas measure the loss in top-1 recovery when the gold candidate’s exposed label is removed while the query and non-target candidates stay fixed.
Set
Enc.
Full AUC
CV AUC
AC main
MiniLM
0.855
0.855
MPNet
0.834
0.834
BGE-large
0.880
0.880
E5-large
0.882
0.882
Qwen3-Emb.
0.860
0.860
MoTIF
MiniLM
0.868
0.867
Appendix
Table 7: LCC full-data AUC vs. 5-fold episode-grouped CV AUC. The two diverge by at most 0.013 (Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B, M2W all), confirming that the lexical coupling signal is not an in-sample artefact.
Figure 4: Oracle min-rank ( ESHoracle , grey) vs. deployable reciprocal-rank fusion ( ESHreal , red) ΔR@1 over BM25 on AndroidControl clean-main. Error bars show B=2000 cluster-bootstrap 95% CIs for deployable RRF deltas; oracle bars are target-aware upper bounds.
Oracle min-rank
True RRF
Combiner
R@1
Δ vs BM25
R@1
Δ vs BM25
MRR (RRF)
BM25
0.555
–
0.555
–
0.631
BM25 + Jaccard
0.588
+0.033
0.578
+0.023 [ +0.021,+0.025 ]
0.642
BM25 + BGE
0.626
+0.071
0.568
+0.012 [ +0.009,+0.016 ]
0.640
BM25 + E5
0.615
+0.060
0.566
+0.011 [ +0.008,+0.014 ]
0.638
BM25 + Qwen3
0.617
+0.062
0.560
+0.005 [ +0.002,+0.008 ]
0.630
Appendix
Table 8: Oracle min-rank vs. true RRF on AndroidControl clean-main ( n=32,646 ). True-RRF Δ vs BM25 95% CIs are paired cluster bootstrap by episode_id with B=2000 . “5 emb.” denotes MiniLM, MPNet, BGE-large, E5-large, and Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B; “lex” adds Jaccard to BM25.
Method
Tuning
R@1
R@5
R@10
MRR
ΔR@1 vs BM25 (pp)
BM25
–
0.558
0.694
0.733
0.628
–
MiniLM
–
0.518
0.717
0.775
0.611
−3.93 [ −5.60,−2.44 ]
BM25+MiniLM RRF
fixed k=60
0.567
0.702
0.758
0.635
+0.95 [ −0.03,+1.94 ]
BM25+MiniLM calibrated
val α=0.60
0.580
0.747
0.794
0.659
+2.27 [ +1.35,+3.23 ]
Oracle BM25+MiniLM upper
target-aware
0.625
0.779
0.825
0.696
+6.71 [ +5.76,+7.65 ]
MPNet
–
0.492
0.729
0.789
0.603
−6.54 [ −8.29,−4.80 ]
Appendix
Table 9: Validation-tuned calibrated score fusion on AndroidControl clean-main test ( n=2,949 ). Scores are z-normalized within each candidate pool; α is selected on validation by R@1 with MRR as a tie-breaker. Oracle rows are target-aware upper bounds, not deployable systems. CIs use paired cluster bootstrap by episode with B=2000 .
Split
n
BM25
M0
Mft
BGE 0
Overall
2,949
0.558
0.518
0.694
0.513
IDD
1,536
0.548
0.490
0.703
0.501
app_unseen
36
0.778
0.722
0.833
0.694
task_unseen
1,377
0.562
0.544
0.680
0.523
text-only
1,784
0.607
0.523
0.678
0.534
cd-only
903
0.458
0.485
0.711
0.452
Appendix
Table 10: Full R@1 breakdown of fine-tuning evaluation on the AndroidControl test clean-main subset. M0 = zero-shot MiniLM-L6-v2; Mft = same model after one epoch; BGE 0 = zero-shot BGE-large.
Method
R@1
LCC
BM25-miss rec.
M0
0.518
0.865
0.151
Mft
0.694
0.877
0.374
BGE 0
0.513
0.868
0.156
Appendix
Table 11: Fine-tuned MiniLM coupling audit on the same held-out AndroidControl clean-main test rows ( n=2,949 ). LCC is 5-fold episode-grouped CV AUC using BM25 rank, Jaccard rank, candidate-pool size, and label type. BM25-miss recovery is the fraction of rows with BM25 rank >1 that the method ranks first.
Method
Orig.
Masked
Δ [95% CI]
BM25
0.558
0.134
−0.423 [ −0.444,−0.402 ]
M0
0.518
0.178
−0.340 [ −0.363,−0.316 ]
Mft
0.694
0.151
−0.542 [ −0.562,−0.520 ]
Appendix
Table 12: Held-out target-text dependence perturbation for the fine-tuning control ( R@1 ). The perturbation blanks the gold candidate’s visible text and content description while retaining the query, non-target candidates, resource IDs, class names, and candidate pools. Negative deltas measure sensitivity to target-exposed text.
Table 16: Qwen3 paired intervals and sparse-retrieval stress test. Deltas are method minus BM25 at R@1 ; negative deltas mean the method is below BM25. For SPLADE, Coupling AUC is the same hit@1 predictability diagnostic, not the encoder-specific LCC definition.
Multimodal Large Language Models have shown promising performance in computer-use tasks, from planning user workflows to grounding natural-language actions to precise UI targets. Existing end-to-end benchmarks primarily emphasize long-horizon task completion, while GUI grounding benchmarks remain focused on conventional controls and a limited set of professional interfaces. We introduce POINTERBENCH, a diagnostic suite of 1,500 screenshot-instruction pairs probing three complementary capabilities: thin sub-element identification and geometric grounding in spreadsheets (POINTERBENCH-Sheets), character-level grounding in long-text documents (POINTERBENCH-Text), and mixed GUI grounding across 100 professional applications (POINTERBENCH-Pro). We carefully curate each task with pixel-exact target geometry and evaluate both general-purpose multimodal models and 39 specialist GUI grounding configurations. We find text grounding to be the most challenging setting, with Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and the leading native specialist UI-Venus-2-9B achieving 69.6%, 53.4%, and 25.8% success on POINTERBENCH-Text despite respective 83.2%, 77.7%, and 54.5% average success across POINTERBENCH. These results reveal substantial headroom in fine-grained GUI grounding across frontier and specialist models. We publicly release the benchmark and evaluation code at https://github.com/warmwindOS/pointerbench.
Valentino Sacco, Saurabh Pandey, Alexander Florian Jercher +1
GUI grounding, the task of locating the interface element specified by a user instruction, is a fundamental capability of GUI agents. However, existing grounding models remain error-prone, often causing downstream task failures. We systematically evaluate 10 grounding models across five datasets and identify a major error pattern: most incorrect clicks hit non-target interface elements rather than the background, with different models repeatedly selecting the same distractors. Motivated by these findings, we propose ConClick, a contrastive learning framework that teaches models to distinguish the target element from plausible distractors. We construct ConClick-Data, a dataset containing 4,292 challenging target-distractor pairs, and train the model using complementary listwise ranking and pairwise margin objectives. ConClick improves the grounding accuracy of Qwen3-VL-8B from 54.71% to 66.03% on ScreenSpot-Pro, from 83.72% to 86.28% on MMBench-GUI L2, and from 63.33% to 70.20% on OSWorld-G, outperforming prior methods built on the same or similarly sized backbones. We further introduce ReClick, an inference-time strategy that revisits promising regions and compares predictions across competing candidates, yielding an additional 2.96 percentage-point improvement in average accuracy across the three benchmarks. Together, our analysis, dataset, and methods provide both empirical insights and practical tools for building more reliable GUI agents. Data and code are available at https://github.com/zhangruotian/ConClick.
GUI grounding models report over 85% accuracy on standard benchmarks, yet drop 27-56 percentage points when instructions require spatial reasoning rather than direct element naming. Current benchmarks miss this because they evaluate each screenshot once with a single fixed instruction. We introduce GUI-Perturbed, a controlled perturbation framework that independently varies visual scenes and instructions to measure grounding robustness. Evaluating three 7B models from the same architecture lineage, we find that relational instructions cause systematic accuracy collapse across all models, a 70% browser zoom produces statistically significant degradation, and rank-8 LoRA fine-tuning with augmented data degrades performance rather than improving it. By perturbing along independent axes, GUI-Perturbed isolates which specific capability axes are affected-spatial reasoning, visual robustness, reasoning calibration-providing diagnostic signal that aggregate benchmarks cannot. We release the dataset, augmentation pipeline, and a fine-tuned model.