Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in graphical user interface (GUI) generation, but reliable evaluation remains challenging due to uncontrolled data distributions, noisy annotations, and limited layout scenario coverage. To address this, we propose SchemaGUI, a template-based benchmark for controllable GUI generation evaluation. By synthesizing paired natural language instructions and deterministic function-call references from parameterized interface schemas, SchemaGUI can generate thousands of deterministically annotated tasks in seconds without human labeling. Based on 1,000 evaluated instances per scenario and language across six representative bilingual scenarios, we benchmark five mainstream models, including the Qwen3.5 family, Qwen3-Coder-30B, and DeepSeek-R1. Our extensive analysis reveals three key insights. First, precise geometric spatial control remains an important bottleneck; while scaling Qwen3.5 from 4B to 27B improves Schema Feasibility from 91.56% to 99.63%, the Geometry score improves more modestly (from 67.05% to 75.30%). Second, generation difficulty is highly sensitive to layout complexity, with current LLMs excelling at simple sequential arrangements but suffering severe coordinate drift in dense grids and multi-region compositions. Third, thinking mode increases token consumption while generally reducing GUI Score, particularly for smaller models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of different data construction paradigms for GUI generation evaluation. (Left) Web-Crawled : data distribution is uncontrolled with expensive manual annotations. (Middle) LLM-Synthesized : the data distribution remains unknown while outputs suffer from model noise and hallucinated references. (Right) SchemaGUI (Ours) : parametric slot configurations enable enumerable distributions and deterministic, exact annotations.
Figure 2: Overview of the SchemaGUI benchmark. Stage 1 samples a GUI instance s from the schema-driven design space S . Stage 2 constructs the aligned triplet (x,yT,yL) through instruction realization, deterministic reference generation, and model prediction. Stage 3 assigns zero to schema-infeasible predictions and computes the GUI Score for feasible predictions over five evaluation dimensions.
Model
Lang.
Calculator
Login Form
Music Player
Doc Editor
Image Editor
Info Card
Overall
Qwen3.5-4B
EN
33.25
84.58
77.84
87.34
74.97
82.59
73.43
ZH
56.26
89.92
84.20
78.79
65.35
84.71
76.54
Qwen3.5-9B
EN
43.40
85.14
87.51
88.88
64.26
83.77
75.49
ZH
63.22
90.25
88.24
79.53
67.24
78.74
77.87
Qwen3.5-27B
EN
71.93
93.07
88.49
88.85
80.84
84.51
84.61
ZH
74.82
93.10
86.03
81.38
70.81
84.55
81.78
Table 1: Main GUI Score results (%) across six GUI generation scenarios. EN and ZH denote the English and Chinese evaluation sets, respectively. Overall is the macro-average over the six scenarios, with each scenario weighted equally. Within each language, the best result in each column is shown in bold , and the second-best is underlined .
Figure 3: GUI Score across the six GUI generation scenarios, macro-averaged over the five evaluated models and two language settings. The horizontal lines indicate the minimum and maximum scores observed for each scenario.
Model
G
F
T
O
H
Feas.
English (EN)
Qwen3.5-4B
68.52
95.55
86.34
84.38
70.10
86.07
Qwen3.5-9B
73.33
94.68
86.15
82.07
70.40
88.68
Qwen3.5-27B
77.37
99.57
88.19
85.34
74.97
99.37
Qwen3-Coder
72.98
99.99
87.08
82.20
72.12
99.83
DeepSeek-R1
79.09
99.20
87.01
84.03
74.28
87.65
Table 2: Submetric performance (%) and Schema Feasibility (Feas.) in EN and ZH. Submetrics are averaged over schema-feasible predictions. Best and second-best results within each language are shown in bold and underlined , respectively.
Model
Lang.
Calculator
Login Form
Music Player
Doc Editor
Image Editor
Info Card
Overall
Qwen3.5-4B -
EN
2525.9
283.4
591.6
318.7
297.7
192.9
701.7
ZH
1252.4
198.3
329.7
285.2
324.9
146.7
422.9
Qwen3.5-4B +
EN
9022.0
3625.2
4094.8
4570.7
5409.7
3232.2
4992.4
ZH
10181.8
4569.9
4607.1
5563.1
5612.4
4275.3
5801.6
Qwen3.5-9B -
EN
1991.9
309.6
393.1
340.1
298.0
192.9
587.6
ZH
1427.6
299.6
426.1
376.6
447.4
203.5
530.1
Table 3: Average raw response-token consumption ( Tout ) across six GUI generation scenarios. EN and ZH denote the English and Chinese evaluation sets. Superscripts - and + indicate non-reasoning and reasoning-enabled configurations, respectively. Overall is the macro-average across the six scenarios. Within each language, the lowest and second-lowest values are shown in bold and underlined.
Figure 4: Changes in GUI Score after enabling thinking mode for the Qwen3.5 models. Each value denotes Δ=GSthinking−GSno-thinking in percentage points; negative values indicate performance degradation.
Table 4: Main sources of controlled variation across the six SchemaGUI scenarios.
Figure 5: Illustration of the Geometry score and its three penalty sources.
Scenario
G at 0.5
Min. G
Max. G
Range
Calculator
0.51070
0.51060
0.51074
0.00014
Login Form
0.82953
0.82947
0.82953
0.00007
Music Player
0.67393
0.67304
0.67398
0.00094
Doc Editor
0.81896
0.81704
0.81896
0.00191
Image Editor
0.66628
0.66598
0.66661
0.00063
Info Card
0.67729
0.67620
0.67730
0.00110
Appendix
Table 5: Sensitivity of Geometry to the severe-overlap threshold. The threshold is varied from 0.1 to 0.9 in increments of 0.1 . The symbol G denotes the average Geometry score. Results are averaged over the five evaluated models in both EN and ZH settings, with 1,000 samples per model, language, and scenario.
Figure 6: Representative error cases in the Calculator scenario. (a) A schema-infeasible output receives a GUI Score of zero. (b) A schema-feasible prediction suffers from grid collapse, severe out-of-bounds placement, and duplicated controls. (c) A structurally complete and usable prediction retains a relatively high GUI Score despite coordinate and size deviations from the deterministic reference.
Model
Lang.
Calculator
Login Form
Music Player
Doc Editor
Image Editor
Info Card
Qwen3.5-4B -
EN
692–6778
18–3406
18–3574
192–500
291–325
149–238
ZH
112–5741
141–400
239–3649
196–521
297–515
109–189
Qwen3.5-4B +
EN
5433–11715
0–7832
2570–7713
2302–7815
3556–7686
1161–7812
ZH
5242–12480
2438–8735
3172–8521
3741–8418
3615–8194
2334–8951
Qwen3.5-9B -
EN
664–4463
162–525
225–3453
192–620
291–326
149–238
ZH
650–7199
199–579
335–515
278–540
434–596
153–259
Appendix
Table 6: Observed minimum–maximum ranges of raw response-token counts. This table includes all generations, including failed, empty, and timed-out outputs. A minimum of zero indicates that at least one sample produced no recorded raw response tokens. Superscripts - and + denote non-reasoning and reasoning-enabled configurations, respectively.
Model
Lang.
Calculator
Login Form
Music Player
Doc Editor
Image Editor
Info Card
Overall
Qwen3.5-4B -
EN
1278.6
182.3
285.3
254.5
297.7
192.9
415.2
ZH
873.8
194.7
309.0
264.5
324.9
146.7
352.3
Qwen3.5-4B +
EN
193.4
154.2
175.6
220.0
183.6
178.8
184.2
ZH
1293.6
173.3
282.2
322.8
369.7
145.4
431.1
Qwen3.5-9B -
EN
1118.6
185.6
291.1
256.4
298.0
192.9
390.4
ZH
1241.3
278.4
426.1
376.6
447.4
203.5
495.5
Appendix
Table 7: Average clean JSON-token counts for successfully parsed GUI outputs. Clean-token statistics include only valid generations that can be parsed into GUI specifications, while parse-failed, empty, and timed-out outputs are excluded. Overall is the macro-average across the six scenarios.
Model
Render
Fidelity
Layout
Visual
Human
Qwen3.5-4B
72.50
3.86
3.38
2.91
49.06
Qwen3.5-9B
88.30
4.02
3.34
2.68
59.10
Qwen3.5-27B
94.19
4.16
3.93
3.42
72.28
Qwen3-Coder
100.00
4.41
3.69
3.18
75.20
DeepSeek-R1
90.80
3.70
3.33
2.91
60.18
Appendix
Table 8: Human evaluation results across five models. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined, respectively.
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
AI models excel at creating content, but typically render it with static, predefined interfaces. Specifically, the output of LLMs is often a markdown "wall of text". Generative UI is a long standing promise, where the model generates not just the content, but the interface itself. Until now, Generative UI was not possible in a robust fashion. We demonstrate that when properly prompted and equipped with the right set of tools, a modern LLM can robustly produce high quality custom UIs for virtually any prompt. When ignoring generation speed, results generated by our implementation are overwhelmingly preferred by humans over the standard LLM markdown output. In fact, while the results generated by our implementation are worse than those crafted by human experts, they are at least comparable in 50% of cases. We show that this ability for robust Generative UI is emergent, with substantial improvements from previous models. We also create and release PAGEN, a novel dataset of expert-crafted results to aid in evaluating Generative UI implementations, as well as the results of our system for future comparisons. Interactive examples can be seen at https://generativeui.github.io
Autonomous agents capable of navigating Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) hold the potential to revolutionize digital productivity. However, achieving true digital autonomy extends beyond reactive element matching; it necessitates a predictive mental model of interface dynamics and the ability to foresee the "digital world state" resulting from interactions. Despite the perceptual capabilities of modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs), existing benchmarks remain bifurcated (focusing either on black-box task completion or static, shallow grounding), thereby failing to assess whether agents truly comprehend the implicit functionality and transition logic of GUIs. To bridge this gap, we introduce AutoGUI-v2, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate deep GUI functionality understanding and interaction outcome prediction. We construct the benchmark using a novel VLM-human collaborative pipeline that recursively parses multi-platform screenshots into hierarchical functional regions to generate diverse evaluation tasks. Providing 2,753 tasks across six operating systems, AutoGUI-v2 rigorously tests agents on region and element-level semantics, grounding, and dynamic state prediction. Our evaluation reveals a striking dichotomy in VLMs: while open-source models fine-tuned on agent data (e.g., Qwen3-VL) excel at functional grounding, commercial models (e.g., Gemini-2.5-Pro-Thinking) dominate in functionality captioning. Crucially, all models struggle with complex interaction logic of uncommon actions, highlighting that deep functional understanding remains a significant hurdle. By systematically measuring these foundational capabilities, AutoGUI-v2 offers a new lens for advancing the next generation of GUI agents.
Hongxin Li, Xiping Wang, Jingran Su +4
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS) · 2New Laboratory of Pattern Recognition (NLPR), CASIA · 3State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems (MAIS), CASIA +3