Screen rotation is a fundamental interaction in Android applications, but it often introduces non-crashing functional failures (NCFs), such as layout inconsistencies and state loss, which are difficult to detect automatically. A key challenge is the lack of effective test oracles for checking cross-orientation state equivalence between portrait and landscape views. We propose RotDroid, a testing framework for detecting GUI rotation bugs via cross-orientation state equivalence. RotDroid generates and mutates State-Preserving action Sequences (SPS) to construct semantically equivalent GUI states across orientations. To support reliable oracle checking, we build RotBench, a dataset of paired portrait-landscape GUI states, and develop RotVL, a vision-language model fine-tuned for equivalence checking. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets show that RotVL outperforms state-of-the-art models, and RotDroid detects more rotation-induced failures than existing techniques under equal budgets. In large-scale studies on open- and closed-source apps, RotDroid reports 94 previously unknown bugs, with 47 confirmed or fixed by developers, demonstrating its practical effectiveness.
Figures & tables
Category
Bug Type
Percentage
Description
Rotation Execution Failures
Unintended Rotation
18%
The screen or UI elements rotate unnecessarily when should remain fixed.
No Rotation
16%
The screen or UI elements fail to rotate when the device orientation changes.
Layout Failures
Content Clipping
14%
Parts of the content or components are truncated or extend beyond the visible screen.
Component Absence
12%
Essential UI elements are not displayed or rendered correctly.
Component Overlap
9%
UI components or contents overlap or obscure each other.
State Restoration Failures
Navigation State Loss
12%
The scroll position, pagination, or other navigational state return to default position.
TABLE I: Distribution of rotation-induced mobile GUI issues.
Fig. 1: Pipeline of the Non-defective Pairs Collection.
Fig. 2: Examples of Automated Generation of Defective Pairs.
Task
Training Set
Validation Set
Test Set
Total
# Samples
# Apps
# Samples
# Apps
# Samples
# Apps
# Samples
# Apps
Bug Detection
2,960
502
320
59
340
62
3,620
623
Bug Classification and Localization
2,300
425
320
51
340
54
2,960
530
TABLE II: Statistics of the Constructed RotBench Dataset for Bug Detection, Classification, and Localization.
Fig. 3: Prompt for Bug Detection, Classification, and Localization.
Fig. 4: Overview of the RotDroid.
Fig. 5: State-equivalent Portrait–Landscape Pairs Construction via State-preserving Action Sequence Mutation.
Model
Bug Detection (%)
Bug Classification (%)
Bug Loc. (Orient.) (%)
Bug Loc. (Coord.)
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Dist. (px)
Ratio
Qwen3-VL-2B
53.24
62.82
53.24
42.48
20.59
8.76
20.59
9.56
54.12
54.41
54.12
53.34
466
73.29
Qwen3-VL-4B
61.47
61.54
61.47
61.41
21.47
20.54
21.47
13.03
52.06
75.53
52.06
37.75
499
53.72
Qwen3-VL-8B
66.47
67.65
66.47
65.90
30.59
52.49
30.59
26.02
54.41
69.03
54.41
43.58
435
38.45
Qwen3-VL-32B
58.82
59.73
58.82
57.84
30.00
65.02
30.00
25.89
53.82
75.99
53.82
41.31
478
30.07
Qwen3-VL-235B
60.00
60.72
60.00
59.32
37.06
46.05
37.06
33.77
56.18
74.48
56.18
46.10
459
45.06
TABLE III: Comparison of RotVL with Baselines on RotBench Dataset.
Model
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Qwen3-VL-8B
63.00
70.22
63.00
66.41
GPT-5.2
65.00
59.21
65.00
61.97
RotVL-8B
70.00
74.81
70.00
72.32
TABLE IV: Bug detection results on the natural bug set.
Methods
RotDroid
DLD
iFixDataloss
Metrics
T
TP
FP
T
TP
FP
T
#Unique Bugs
354
300
54
219
167
52
125
TABLE V: Comparison with data loss detection tools.
Methods
RotDroid
DOC
Metrics
T
TP
FP
T
TP
FP
#Unique Bugs
318
268
50
161
139
22
TABLE VI: Comparison with the DOC-based method.
Bug Category
Confirmed
Pending
Rejected
Layout Failures
21
13
0
State Restoration Failures
25
15
1
Rotation Execution Failures
1
3
0
Total
47
30
1
TABLE VII: Distribution of identified GUI issues in open-source Android applications by bug category.
#1
Dropbox
#5
ibis*
#9
Tasks
#13
MANGA*
#17
Toomics
#2
Phone*
#6
ReadEra
#10
Canvas
#14
Yr
#18
Zillow
#3
Health
#7
Infinite*
#11
Walli
#15
Cabify*
#19
US News
#4
Lark*
#8
Cars*
#12
Trulia
#16
Fuelio
#20
OurFa*
* denotes abbreviated application names.
TABLE VIII: Closed-source Android applications with identified GUI issues.
Fig. 6: GUI Layout Failure in Florae.
Fig. 7: GUI State Restoration Failure in DuckDuckGo.
Fault detection identifies abnormal behavior in machines, sensors, infrastructure, software, and autonomous systems before it causes harm or disruption.
Exploratory GUI testing is a particularly demanding setting for MLLM agents: without predefined test scripts, an agent must autonomously navigate an application and discover defects through its own interaction. However, current evaluation falls short on two fronts. First, existing benchmarks focus almost exclusively on interaction defects, leaving display defects outside the evaluation frame. Second, evaluation protocols are bound to predefined defect annotations, collapsing the testing process into a single end-state judgment that conflates qualitatively distinct failure modes. To address these challenges, we present GUITestScape, an interactive benchmark covering 61 real-world Android applications and 508 preset defects spanning interaction and display types, and introduce GUIJudge, an open-set evaluator that decomposes an agent's testing trajectory into independently diagnosable capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that GUIJudge achieves reliable process-aware evaluation beyond predefined annotations, substantially outperforming all baselines. Benchmarking on GUITestScape further reveals that detection remains the critical bottleneck for existing models across both defect types, and that integrating GUIJudge's verifiers into existing agents significantly boosts their detection performance without retraining.
Xiaoyi Chen, Yifei Gao, Yang Xu +3
Beijing Jiaotong University · Independent Researcher
Can vision-language models predict what a 180° rotation would reveal from the original image alone? We study this ability through Rotated-Outcome Prediction: given an original image, a model must answer what would be seen or read after a 180° in-plane rotation, without directly observing the rotated target. To isolate this gap, we introduce RotOutBench, a paired diagnostic benchmark spanning open visual cases and controlled text-image rotations. A sharp pattern emerges: many VLMs can recognize the relevant content when directly given either the original or rotated image, yet fail to infer the rotated result from the original image alone. On controlled text-image rotations, predicted-rotation accuracy collapses to near zero even for models with high direct-reading accuracy. A model-level case study further shows that the prediction state can approach a rotated-image reading state, while the final readout still shifts toward the original string. Current VLMs can recognize a transformed visual state when it is shown, but often fail to predict that state from the original view.
Lexin Wang, Shenghua Liu, Yiwei Wang +2
Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of California, Merced
Vision-language models (VLMs) can detect that an object has rotated across views, but cannot reliably tell by how much. We introduce OR-Bench, a fine-grained benchmark for object-rotation reasoning with eight tasks covering rotation detection, rotation magnitude estimation, and multi-view rotation reasoning. Across 12 VLMs, the gap is stark: the strongest models approach 100% accuracy on detection, yet even coarse magnitude estimation is near chance. When asked for exact angles, models place 91.8--100% of their predictions on just 0∘, 90∘, and 180∘, a failure we term canonical-angle collapse. This collapse persists even without visual input. Representation probing shows that missing information is only part of the explanation. Although rotation information becomes less recoverable at finer granularity, substantial coarse-grained information remains, and a simple linear probe outperforms the models' generated answers. This suggests that VLMs underuse rotation information they already encode. We therefore propose RotationCue, a lightweight decoder that recovers coarse rotation information from the VLM's own frozen representations and feeds it back to the model as intermediate textual context. Across three VLMs, RotationCue improves every model--task combination on OR-Bench, raising macro-average accuracy by 7.9--12.6 points while preserving general capabilities.
Zhaochen Wang, Yujun Cai, Huangbo Zou +4
The University of Queensland · Westlake University