Authors: Zirui Shang, Yang Liu, Xin Shu, Zhi Gao, Xinxiao Wu, Lifeng Fan
Organizations: Beijing Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Technology, School of Computer Science & Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology · State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI · Wuhan University · Guangdong Laboratory of Machine Perception and Intelligent Computing, Shenzhen MSU-BIT University
Training graphical user interface (GUI) agents with reinforcement learning suffers from sparse outcome rewards, leading to inefficient learning. Process rewards offer a promising direction for credit assignment to intermediate actions; however, accurately evaluating an action requires identifying evidence across long-horizon GUI trajectories, as its value may depend on information beyond its immediate state and observation. In this paper, we propose an adaptive-group process reward framework that dynamically partitions a GUI trajectory into semantically coherent subgoal groups, enabling process reward estimation at both the action and group levels. At the action level, a critic evaluates each action based on the visual changes and subsequent actions within the group for action correctness and contribution to the subgoal. At the group level, the framework aggregates action-level evaluations to assess subgoal completion and contribution to the overall task, and further refines these assessments by leveraging the context of all groups in the trajectory. The process reward of each action is obtained by combining its action-level evaluation with the refined group-level evaluation. We further augment GRPO's outcome advantage with the proposed process rewards to provide finer-grained guidance for GUI agent training. Experiments on process reward benchmarks and downstream RL training demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Fixed-window step rewards, milestone rewards, and adaptive-group process rewards on an executed GUI trajectory. (a) A fixed local window can include irrelevant context and miss later evidence. (b) Predefined milestones can leave a valid executed path uncredited. (c) Adaptive groups follow the executed subgoals and score actions within each group.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed framework. (a) A grouping critic partitions the trajectory from the instruction and responses into subgoal groups. (b) Two-level scoring produces an action-level score and a refined group-level score, which are used to generate the process rewards. (c) The process rewards shape the GRPO advantage.
Reward model
P
NPV
R
S
OA
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
54.4
49.4
53.8
50.0
52.0
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
60.3
64.8
79.8
41.5
61.7
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
58.5
64.8
83.0
34.8
60.1
GLM-4.5V-106B
64.0
78.5
89.0
44.5
67.9
Qwen3-VL-32B-T
68.3
77.3
85.2
56.1
71.4
Qwen3-VL-235B-T
66.5
75.0
84.1
53.0
69.4
Table 1: Process reward evaluation on CUARewardBench, compared with models under the OpenCUA-Reflector template. P, NPV, R, S, and OA denote precision, negative predictive value, recall, specificity, and overall accuracy. Best results are in bold; second-best are underlined.
Reward model
P
NPV
R
S
OA
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
56.7
54.2
67.0
43.3
55.8
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
65.3
62.4
67.8
59.8
64.0
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
58.7
67.1
85.2
33.5
60.7
GLM-4.5V-106B
69.5
64.2
66.1
67.7
66.9
Qwen3-VL-32B-T
78.2
66.3
63.2
80.5
71.4
Qwen3-VL-235B-T
74.5
63.2
59.3
77.4
67.9
Table 2: Process reward evaluation on CUARewardBench, compared with models under the SE-WSM template. Best results are in bold; second-best are underlined.
Framework
Model
P
R
F1
CUAJudge
GPT-5-mini
49.7
30.8
38.0
CUAJudge
Qwen3-VL-8B
67.7
12.7
21.3
OSThemis
Qwen3-VL-8B
17.0
14.3
15.6
SeekJudge
Qwen3-VL-8B
41.4
20.4
27.3
SeekJudge
SeekJudge-9B
44.5
33.3
38.1
SeekJudge
Qwen3.6-27B
44.0
30.8
36.3
Table 3: Step-level evaluation on CUAStepBench. Best results are in bold.
Chrome
Impress
Calc
OA
Method
1 run
3-run mean
1 run
3-run mean
1 run
3-run mean
1 run
3-run mean
UI-TARS
32.6
28.2
33.8
32.1
10.6
7.6
25.6
22.6
Outcome GRPO
43.5
37.0
44.7
41.6
19.1
12.8
35.7
30.4
SeekJudge
45.7
38.3
46.8
41.1
19.1
14.9
37.1
31.4
Ours
49.9
43.4
48.7
43.3
23.4
17.0
40.6
34.5
Table 4: Task success rate (%) on OSWorld. All methods use UI-TARS-1.5-7B as the base model. Impress and Calc denote LibreOffice Impress and LibreOffice Calc. OA is the overall success rate over the three applications’ tasks.
Grouping
P
NPV
R
S
OA
Single-group
69.1
96.3
98.4
49.7
75.7
Fixed-window
67.4
93.8
97.2
47.2
73.7
Grouping w/ screenshots
79.4
81.8
85.1
75.2
80.4
Ours
79.4
84.1
87.8
73.9
81.3
Table 5: Grouping ablation on CUARewardBench. Single-group places all actions in one group. Fixed-window denotes the fixed-window step-reward methods, consecutive windows of 5 screenshots. Grouping w/ screenshots additionally uses screenshots when partitioning.
Scoring
P
NPV
R
S
OA
w/o reference
74.7
83.7
89.0
65.2
77.9
w/o action scoring
68.6
85.3
92.2
51.6
73.3
w/o group scoring
70.8
91.5
95.6
54.8
76.6
w/o refinement
76.0
86.2
90.7
67.1
79.7
Sum aggregation
70.6
94.4
97.2
53.5
76.9
Ours
79.4
84.1
87.8
73.9
81.3
Table 6: Scoring and aggregation ablation on CUARewardBench. w/o reference omits uk . w/o refinement omits Frev . w/o group scoring uses only rtact . w/o action scoring uses only r~k(t)group . Sum aggregation replaces the product with an equal sum of the two scores.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Contribution
Completed
Partial
Failed
Uncertain
Milestone
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
Useful-efficient
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
Useful-inefficient
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.4
Exploratory
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.2
Redundant
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
Harmful
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 7: Lookup table M mapping the two labels to a scalar. The same table is used at both the action level and the group level.
Setting
Sync
Async
w/o Ours
92.3
92.3
Ours
60.3
87.9
Δ
−32.0
−4.4
Appendix
Table 8: Sampling throughput (trajectories per hour). Sync starts the next trajectory after scoring finishes; Async starts the next immediately and scores the completed trajectory in the background. Δ is the change from adding Ours.
Cause
Count
Share
Insufficient application knowledge
26
41.3%
Visual or interaction misread
14
22.2%
Missed instruction constraint
12
19.0%
Overestimated group contribution
11
17.5%
Appendix
Table 9: Underlying causes of critic–human disagreements on CUARewardBench key steps.
Figure 3: A Chrome trajectory for enabling Do Not Track.
Figure 4: A Calc trajectory that fills the Seq No. column with “No. #”.
Figure 5: A failure-case trajectory that opens the first link in the latest Bills email in a new Chrome tab. The dashed outline marks the incorrectly scored step.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become a promising approach for improving GUI Agents in long-horizon, stochastic digital environments, but trajectory-level success feedback is too sparse to provide reliable credit assignment for intermediate exploration steps. To mitigate this issue, recent studies introduce Process Reward Models (PRMs), which provide finer-grained training feedback through global milestone verification or local step-level evaluation. However, these methods still suffer from two level-specific limitations: global milestone decomposition is subjective and singular, making it difficult to accommodate the multiple valid execution paths in real GUI tasks, while fixed local judging windows may miss long-range key evidence or dilute the decision signal with irrelevant frames. Inspired by stain-tracing mechanisms in network flow analysis, we propose StainFlow, an entity-stain-flow process reward model for GUI Agents. To reduce the subjectivity of global partitioning, we introduce the Global Entity Stain Tracking module, which extracts visually verifiable task entities and tracks how their stain concentrations and states evolve along the trajectory, allowing task phases to be objectively separated by changes in the entity evidence flow. To improve the accuracy of local verification, we introduce the Local Stain Evidence Linking module. Centered on the triggering entities of each candidate key node, it retrieves relevant steps based on their stain concentrations and state changes, and dynamically constructs high-density evidence windows for verifying true key nodes. Extensive experiments on AndroidWorld and OGRBench show that StainFlow relatively improves online RL success by 3.2% and trajectory completion judgment accuracy by 1.8%.
Haojie Hao, Longkun Hao, Yihang Lou +8
Beihang University · Peking University · Renmin University of China +4
Long-horizon GUI automation remains challenging due to error accumulation over extended interaction sequences. Process Reward Models (PRMs) provide dense step-level supervision for mitigating error accumulation, yet standard PRMs are poorly suited to GUI verification. Standard PRM judgments often rely on superficial visual alignment rather than functional correctness, reflecting an evaluative knowledge gap caused by missing domain-specific adjudication logic. Standard PRMs also perform passive, single-pass visual assessment, which creates Visual Ambiguity when reliable judgment requires actively locating, parsing, or inspecting task-relevant UI evidence. We introduce GUI-PRA, a Process Reward Agent that transforms GUI process evaluation from passive scoring into active investigation. GUI-PRA couples Experience-Injected Criterion Synthesis, which distills generalized verification principles into state-specific criteria, with Criterion-Guided Autoregressive Perception, which uses these criteria to navigate multi-granularity visual tools and gather grounded evidence. On AndroidWorld and Mobile-MiniWoB++, GUI-PRA achieves improvements of 5.0% and 6.5% over standard PRMs on the Qwen-VL series, with Qwen3-VL attaining 54.74% success rate on AndroidWorld. On the offline OS-Critic Bench, GUI-PRA demonstrates strong competitiveness against fully trained critic models.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) based GUI agents stand to benefit significantly from online reinforcement learning (RL). However, their training is bottlenecked by two fundamental issues: current data synthesis methods for GUI Agents rely on specific environments and struggle to generate diverse data, while existing evaluators either suffer from limited scalability or provide inaccurate and unreliable reward signals. To overcome these challenges, we introduce GSAR (Goal-State-Anchor Reward), a RL reward framework that supports scalable task generation and delivers reliable reward signals for stable and efficient policy optimization. Our approach features self-evolving data synthesis, which produces multiple environments through task execution and generates diverse tasks and goal states. Complementing this, a state-anchor mechanism automatically annotates task-relevant UI elements in successful goal states as reference anchors. During RL training, these reference anchors provide accurate, scalable reward signals that substantially enhance efficiency. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that our framework achieves over 90% accuracy on offline trajectory verification and performs closest to rule-based methods. Furthermore, agents trained using our reward framework exhibit strong performance on both AndroidWorld and our constructed benchmark, establishing a scalable approach for GUI agent training.