Multimodal GUI agents have emerged as a promising paradigm for digital task automation, yet transitioning from benchmark-oriented models to dependable real-world applications remains challenging due to limited environment coverage, brittle task construction, and unreliable reward verification. In this work, we present UI-Venus-2, a general-purpose foundation GUI agent designed to operate across mobile, web, and desktop environments through a unified closed-loop reasoning-action framework. To bridge the gap toward practical deployment, we jointly scale three critical dimensions: (1) Environments, expanding coverage to more than 170 multilingual mobile apps and native desktop operating systems; (2) Tasks, employing a deep-research pipeline for function-grounded instruction generation; and (3) Verification, adopting trace-level and sample-level evaluators with visual keypoints and multi-model voting to ensure reliable RL signals for training. Furthermore, we integrate safety-aware mechanisms to ensure controlled execution of consequential actions. By offering a capable, efficient, and open-source foundation, UI-Venus-2 advances the field toward more generalizable, verifiable, and self-reflective agents for real-world applications.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performances of UI-Venus-2 on GUI-agent benchmarks. Each panel compares UI-Venus-2-27B and UI-Venus-2-9B with some selected strong baselines. We favor standalone end-to-end systems evaluated on the closest available task subset and step budget; source-reported action scaffolds may still differ. MobileWorld uses GUI-only success rate on 117 tasks with 50 steps, WebVoyager uses the refreshed 595-task split, Odysseys uses average rubric score over 200 tasks, VenusBench-CAPTCHA uses micro Pass@1 over all 219 examples, and VenusBench-GD uses English-instruction micro-average accuracy. “*” denotes the results are reproduced by us.
Figure 2: System Overview of UI-Venus-2 . The figure illustrates the task generation and trajectory collection process of UI-Venus-2. Diverse tasks are constructed to form a multi-domain task pool, and interaction trajectories are collected across mobile, browser, and computer environments, covering a broad range of real-world applications, websites, and desktop software.
Figure 3: The Three-Stage Pipeline of UI-Venus-2 . Following the overall training recipe of UI-Venus-1.5, UI-Venus-2 starts with large-scale trajectory-based mid-training to inject GUI interaction knowledge. The resulting model is then optimized independently for each domain using step-level Offline-RL, covering Grounding, CAPTCHA, Mobile, Web, and Computer tasks. Finally, the domain-specialized models are consolidated into the final UI-Venus-2 model via multi-teacher on-policy distillation.
Models
MobileGym
VenusBench-Mobile
AndroidWorld
MobileWorld
KnowUBench
MemGUI
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
9.0*
15.3*
57.8
18.0(18.0)*
33.3
6.2*
Qwen3.6-27B ( Qwen Team, 2026b )
24.6*
28.0*
70.3
36.8(41.9)*
-
25.7*
Claude-Opus-4.6 ( Anthropic, 2026a )
-
36.5*
-
44.5
-
-
Kimi-K2.6 ( Moonshot AI, 2026a )
38.7*
31.2*
-
55.6
-
39.1
Kimi-K3 ( Moonshot AI, 2026b )
-
-
-
74.4
-
-
Table 1: Performance comparison on various mobile GUI benchmarks. VenusBench-Mobile reports success rate on its 149-task primary pool. For MobileWorld, we report GUI-only success rate on 117 tasks under the 50-step setting; values in parentheses, when available, use 100 steps. MemGUI reports Main Results pass@1. “*” denotes the baseline results evaluated or reproduced by us.
Models
OSWorld-Verified
DeskCraft
General VLMs
Claude-Opus-4.8 ( Zhou et al., 2026 )
83.4
-
Qwen3.5-9B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
41.8
14.6 ∗
Qwen3.6-27B ( Qwen Team, 2026b )
62.0
28.7 ∗
Kimi-K2.6 ( Moonshot AI, 2026a )
73.1
41.4 ∗
Seed-2.0-Pro ( Seed, 2026 )
62.3
40.0 ∗
Table 2: Performance comparison on computer-use agent benchmarks: OSWorld-Verified and DeskCraft (left), and OSWorld 2.0 (right) under the official 150-step budget with 108 tasks. Reported OSWorld-Verified baselines use the 361-task setting in their cited source and may use model-specific action scaffolds. For DeskCraft, we report an author-evaluated aggregate over the 538-task union of the Standard and Interactive splits, which differs from the benchmark’s official split-level reporting. OSWorld 2.0 results report the official Binary Accuracy and Partial Score metrics; baselines are taken from the official leaderboard, possibly with model-specific tool settings, and the reasoning-effort setting is labeled in parentheses for models with multiple official entries. “*” indicates baseline results evaluated by us.
Models
WebVoyager
Online-Mind2Web
REAL
Odysseys
Avg.
Perfect
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
46.9 ∗
27.3 ∗
18.2 ∗
42.6 ∗
13.5 ∗
Qwen3.5-4B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
–
–
–
42.9
10.7
Qwen3.6-27B ( Qwen Team, 2026b )
84.3 ∗
55.3 ∗
27.3 ∗
39.5 ∗
18.5 ∗
OpenAI Operator ( OpenAI, 2025 )
87.0
61.3
–
–
–
Table 3: Performance comparison on four live-web benchmarks: WebVoyager , Online-Mind2Web , REAL , and Odysseys . The Fara1.5 and GPT-5 (SoM) WebVoyager entries use the refreshed 595-task, 100-step robust protocol and are averaged over three runs; live-site states may vary by evaluation date. For Odysseys, we report both the averaged rubric score (Avg.) and the perfect rubric score (Perfect). "*" indicates our reproduced results.
Models
Grounding Benchmarks
VenusBench-GD
ScreenSpot-Pro
OSworld-G-R
UI-Vision
General VLMs
Qwen 3.7 Plus ( Qwen Team, 2026c )
75.2*
68.9
78.2
68.0
Seed 2.1 Pro ( ByteDance Seed, 2026 )
73.9*
65.3
78.0
62.0
Kimi-K2.6 ( Moonshot AI, 2026a )
73.1*
52.0*
69.7*
51.7*
Qwen3.6-27B ( Qwen Team, 2026b )
67.7*
65.2*
76.9*
58.3*
Table 4: Performance comparison on various Grounding Benchmarks . VenusBench-GD reports English-instruction micro-average point-in-box accuracy. “*” indicates baselines evaluated or reproduced by us.
Models
VenusBench- CAPTCHA
MCA-Bench
Spatial- CAPTCHA-Bench
NextGen- CAPTCHAs
Open CaptchaWorld
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
28.3
30.4
4.9
2.8
36.4
Qwen3.6-27B ( Qwen Team, 2026b )
53.0
51.7
31.0
14.1
47.7
Seed-2.0-Pro ( Seed, 2026 )
47.9
36.5
43.8
20.4
55.6
Kimi-K2.6 ( Moonshot AI, 2026a )
39.7
38.7
24.8
7.2
47.8
Claude-Opus-4.6 ( Anthropic, 2026a )
16.0
25.9
9.5
2.8
23.3
Table 5: Performance Comparison across CAPTCHA Benchmarks . All results are Pass@1 percentages, and higher is better. We evaluate on VenusBench-CAPTCHA and four public benchmarks: MCA-Bench Wu et al. (2026b) , Spatial-CAPTCHA-Bench Kharlamova et al. (2026) , NextGen-CAPTCHAs Liu et al. (2026b) , and Open CaptchaWorld Luo et al. (2025b) . We use 1,000 sampled MCA-Bench examples, 15 NextGen-CAPTCHAs task types, and 16 Open CaptchaWorld task types; see the appendix for selection details.
Model
OSHarm (ASR ↓ )
OSBlind (ASR ↓ )
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
25.3
79.4
Qwen3.5-27B ( Qwen Team, 2026a )
18.0
89.3
Kimi K2.6 ( Moonshot AI, 2026a )
32.0
93.6
GUI-specific Models
EvoCUA-8B ( Xue et al., 2026 )
39.3
85.3
Table 6: Safety evaluation on OSHARM and OS-BLIND benchmarks. ASR denotes Attack Success Rate (%, lower is better).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Action
Definition
Shared Actions (All Platforms)
Click(point=(x, y))
Click at coordinates (x, y).
Drag(start=(x1, y1), end=(x2, y2))
Drag from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2).
Swipe(start=(x1, y1), end=(x2, y2))
Scroll by swiping from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2).
DoubleClick(point=(x, y))
Perform a double-click/tap at coordinates (x, y).
LongPress(point=(x, y))
Long press at coordinates (x, y) to trigger extra options.
Appendix
Table 7: All actions and their definitions used in UI-Venus-2 . We unify the action space and map all the actions in the existing open-source dataset to this space.
Figure 4: Examples of synthesized GUI Grounding training data. Our pipeline generates diverse and realistic interface screenshots spanning desktop (macOS, Windows), mobile (iOS), and web platforms, covering both professional software and consumer applications. All interfaces are rendered in a real headless Chromium browser via Playwright, ensuring high-fidelity visual output that closely mirrors authentic user environments.
Figure 5: Overview of VenusBench-CAPTCHA. Each panel shows one complete, uncropped representative screenshot. The OCR label gives the target transcription, numbered boxes indicate the required click order, and arrows visualize annotated drag trajectories. These annotations are added for presentation only and are not part of the model input.
GUI agents have the potential to become a general purpose executor over existing digital devices. To advance them toward real-world use, we envision agents that operate reliably on real devices, execute workflows across platforms, combine GUI interaction with CLI execution, complete long-horizon tasks, proactively initiate useful services, and autonomously improve their capabilities with minimal human effort. Guided by this vision, we present Qwen-UI-Agent, a real-world centric foundation GUI agent spanning mobile, computer-use, web, and DeepSearch environments. Qwen-UI-Agent combines diverse sandbox environments with a large-scale real-device mobile runtime. Its unified action space interleaves GUI operations with CLI execution and generates batched actions in a single model turn. An AutoResearch-style data flywheel uses agents to construct tasks and environments, diagnose failures, and plan subsequent iterations. Online RL supports training on trajectories exceeding 100 turns, with over 10,000 concurrent environments accelerating rollout. A lightweight harness layer supports proactive service initiation and stateful workflows across mobile and computer. Across a broad suite of evaluations, Qwen-UI-Agent sets state-of-the-art performance on mobile-use benchmarks while delivering competitive performance on computer- and browser-use tasks against frontier models, including Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.6 Sol. On mobile use, it achieves 82.1% on MobileWorld, 92.2% on MobileWorld-Real, and 97.5% on AndroidDaily. On computer use, it achieves 79.5% on OSWorld-Verified and a 40.0% partial-progress score on OSWorld-v2. On browser use and GUI grounding, it achieves 73.6% on WebArena and 81.5% on ScreenSpot-Pro, respectively.
Autonomous mobile GUI agents have attracted increasing attention along with the advancement of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). However, existing methods still suffer from inefficient learning from failed trajectories and ambiguous credit assignment under sparse rewards for long-horizon GUI tasks. To that end, we propose UI-Voyager, a novel two-stage self-evolving mobile GUI agent. In the first stage, we employ Rejection Fine-Tuning (RFT), which enables the continuous co-evolution of data and models in a fully autonomous loop. The second stage introduces Group Relative Self-Distillation (GRSD), which identifies critical fork points in group rollouts and constructs dense step-level supervision from successful trajectories to correct failed ones. Extensive experiments on AndroidWorld show that our 4B model achieves an 81.0% Pass@1 success rate, outperforming numerous recent baselines and exceeding human-level performance. Ablation and case studies further verify the effectiveness of GRSD. Our method represents a significant leap toward efficient, self-evolving, and high-performance mobile GUI automation without expensive manual data annotation.
Graphical user interface (GUI) agents build on vision-language models to complete user tasks end-to-end in real applications through interface actions such as tapping, swiping, text entry, and navigation. However, existing GUI agents are trained and evaluated largely on offline trajectories, simulated environments, and standardized benchmarks. These differ substantially from real applications in interface layout, interaction logic, and abnormal-state distribution, and cannot faithfully characterize execution stability in real-world use, where account states, permission dialogs, payment authentication, and risk control continually reshape the state distribution and open a persistent gap between benchmark scores and real usability. To close this gap, we propose Xiaomi-GUI-0, a native multimodal GUI agent for real mobile environments, trained and evaluated within a real-device closed loop. At its core is a real-device-dominant hybrid infrastructure, where physical devices are the primary execution environment and sandboxes provide auxiliary support, so that data collection, training, rollout, and evaluation share an execution distribution close to real deployment. We construct multi-source training data spanning high-frequency head tasks, high-generalization data for long-tail intents, and capability-enhancement data for reflection and memory, and introduce an error-driven data flywheel that turns failure trajectories into corrected actions, reflective explanations, and recovery demonstrations. The model is trained through a progressive three-stage pipeline of supervised fine-tuning, step-level reinforcement learning, and agentic reinforcement learning. Evaluated on public benchmarks and our in-house RealMobile, Xiaomi-GUI-0 achieves 72.0% success on RealMobile and 78.9% on AndroidWorld, while substantially improving execution stability and abnormal-state recognition in real-world tasks.