Constructing robust GUI agents relies on multimodal visual grounding: the ability to precisely map natural language intents to actionable on-screen components. Despite abundant desktop, web, and mobile benchmarks, high-fidelity resources tailored for diverse environments are surprisingly scarce. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Screen Referring Grounding Dataset (ScreenRef), a comprehensive GUI grounding dataset consisting of GUI screenshots paired with natural language referring expressions and box or point annotations. Spanning desktop, web, and mobile domains, ScreenRef comprises 586K screenshots and over 633K referring expression instances, covering tasks such as text recognition, visual matching, spatial understanding, and refusal scenarios. To boost the model's grounding performance, we propose the Distillation-to-Reinforcement Learning (D2RL) method to address the limited generalization of supervised fine-tuning and the sparse reward problem in reinforcement learning. Utilizing ScreenRef, we train Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct via sequential SFT and D2RL training, yielding GroundGUI-8B. GroundGUI-8B achieves 95.2% on ScreenSpot-V2, 63.9% on ScreenSpot-Pro, 65.4% on OSWorld-G, 86.8% on MMBench-GUI L2, and 38.3% on UI-Vision. Among 8B-scale models, it produces substantial gains over models trained on open-source datasets, with performance comparable or even superior to models trained on closed-source data. Code, models, and datasets are available at https://github.com/PrentisAI/GroundGUI.
Figures & tables
Platform
Scale & Statistics
Dataset
Web
Mobile
Desktop
Images
Instr.
Res Range
Refusal
OS-ATLAS ( Wu et al., 2025b )
✓
✓
✓
1.85M
—
(0.5, 5.2)
×
FineWeb ( Penedo et al., 2024 )
✓
×
×
1.4M
—
(2.1, 2.1)
×
UGround ( Gou et al., 2025 )
✓
×
×
773K
—
(0.4, 1.9)
×
Aria-UI ( Yang et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
✓
295K
—
(1.3, 1.9)
×
SeeClick ( Cheng et al., 2024 )
✓
×
×
270K
—
(2.1, 2.1)
×
Table 1: Comparison with existing GUI grounding datasets. Instruction counts follow each dataset’s original reporting unit and are not directly comparable across datasets; details in Appendix B .
Figure 1: Overview of the ScreenRef data construction pipeline. Path 1 consists of screenshot crawling, metadata filtering, instruction generation, and verification stages. Path 2 contains tutorial video crawling, keyframe candidate extraction, joint instruction and action generation, and coordinate generation stages.
Figure 2: Overview of the D2RL method. The format check is a gate, not a reward term.
Model
Mobile
Desktop
Web
Avg.
Text
Icon.
Text
Icon.
Text
Icon.
Open-Source Models
Qwen3-VL-2B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
95.5
82.0
95.4
73.6
89.7
76.4
86.7
Phi-Ground-7B ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
90.2
76.4
93.6
75.9
96.5
62.0
83.8
OS-ATLAS-7B ( Wu et al., 2025b )
95.2
75.8
90.7
63.6
90.6
77.3
85.1
UGround-V1-7B ( Gou et al., 2025 )
83.6
90.5
85.8
86.3
95.5
83.2
87.7
Table 2: Performance on ScreenSpot-V2 . Bold values = best results.
Model
Windows
macOS
Linux
iOS
Android
Web
Avg.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Bas.
Adv.
Qwen3-VL-2B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
81.9
0.0
80.3
46.2
67.5
0.0
90.8
0.0
91.0
0.0
88.1
0.0
46.5
OS-ATLAS-7B ( Wu et al., 2025b )
36.9
18.8
44.4
21.7
31.4
13.3
74.8
48.8
69.6
46.8
61.3
35.4
41.4
Aguvis-7B ( Xu et al., 2024 )
37.3
21.7
48.1
33.3
33.5
25.0
67.5
65.2
61.0
51.0
61.6
45.5
45.7
UI-TARS-1.5-7B ( Qin et al., 2025 )
68.3
39.0
69.0
44.5
64.4
37.8
88.5
69.4
90.5
69.3
81.0
56.5
64.3
UGround-V1-7B ( Gou et al., 2025 )
66.8
39.0
71.3
48.6
56.5
31.1
92.7
70.9
93.5
71.0
88.7
64.6
65.7
Table 3: Performance comparison on MMBench-GUI L2 benchmark. Bold values = best results.
Model
CAD
Dev.
Creative
Scientific
Office
OS
Avg.
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Text
Icon
Qwen3-VL-2B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
31.0
15.6
55.2
11.7
59.1
16.1
64.6
22.7
72.3
34.0
59.8
23.6
41.9
InfiGUI-3B ( Liu et al., 2026a )
50.8
25.0
64.9
20.0
51.5
16.8
68.8
32.7
70.6
32.1
49.5
19.7
45.2
Ferret-UI Lite ( You et al., 2024 )
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53.3
UI-TARS-7B ( Qin et al., 2025 )
20.8
9.4
58.4
12.4
50.0
9.1
63.9
31.8
63.3
20.8
30.8
16.9
35.7
Phi-Ground ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
26.9
17.2
70.8
16.7
56.6
13.3
58.0
29.1
76.4
44.0
55.1
25.8
43.2
Table 4: Performance comparison on ScreenSpot-Pro benchmark. Bold values = best results.
Model
Text Matching
Element Recognition
Layout Understanding
Fine-grained Manipulation
Refusal
Avg
JEDI-3B ( Xie et al., 2025 )
67.4
53.0
53.8
44.3
7.4
50.9
Qwen3-VL-2B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
61.7
45.8
54.2
39.6
-
45.9
OS-ATLAS-7B ( Wu et al., 2025b )
44.1
29.4
35.2
16.8
7.4
27.7
UGround-7B ( Gou et al., 2025 )
51.3
40.3
43.5
24.8
0.0
36.4
Aguvis-7B ( Xu et al., 2024 )
55.9
41.2
43.9
28.2
0.0
38.7
UI-TARS-7B ( Qin et al., 2025 )
60.2
51.8
54.9
35.6
0.0
47.5
Table 5: Performance comparison on OSWorld-G benchmark. Bold values = best results.
Model
Basic
Functional
Spatial
Avg
SeeClick ( Cheng et al., 2024 )
9.4
4.7
2.1
5.4
Qwen3-VL-2B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
0.0
19.2
0.1
6.2
OS-ATLAS-7B ( Wu et al., 2025b )
12.2
11.2
3.7
9.0
UGround-V1-7B ( Gou et al., 2025 )
15.4
17.1
6.3
12.9
Qwen3-VL-8B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
25.0
27.9
1.2
17.5
UI-TARS-7B ( Qin et al., 2025 )
20.1
24.3
8.4
17.6
Table 6: Performance comparison on UI-Vision benchmark. Bold values = best results.
Model
SS-Pro
OSW-G
MMB-GUI L2
SS-V2
Average
Qwen3-VL-8B (reported) ( Zhao et al., 2026b )
49.9
54.8
81.3
91.7
69.4
+ ScaleCUA SFT
52.8
61.7
83.6
93.6
72.9
+ GroundCUA SFT
58.5
59.6
84.9
91.9
73.7
+ ScreenRef SFT (ours)
62.4
64.9
84.5
93.9
76.4
Table 7: Qwen3-VL-8B fine-tuned on different grounding datasets under recommended settings for each. UI-Vision is omitted due to source overlap with GroundCUA. Bold values = best results.
Model
SS-V2
SS-Pro
MMB-GUI L2
UI-Vision
OSW-G
Average
SFT
93.9
62.4
84.5
34.3
64.9
68.0
+ OPSD
95.0
62.6
85.8
37.0
65.1
69.1
+ RLOO
95.0
63.4
85.8
36.5
64.0
68.9
+ RLOO †
95.0
62.8
86.4
37.5
63.8
69.1
+ D2RL
95.2
63.9
86.8
38.3
65.4
69.9
Table 8: Ablation study of Distillation-to-Reinforcement Learning on all GUI grounding benchmarks. RLOO † denotes a model first trained with SFT using 12K RL data and then optimized with RLOO. Bold values = best results.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Examples of the four ScreenRef task types in desktop environments.
Figure 4: Examples of the four ScreenRef task types in web environments.
Figure 5: Examples of the four ScreenRef task types in mobile environments.
Platform
Text
Visual
Spatial
Refusal
Total
Desktop
128,018
61,951
63,291
13,912
267,172
Web
167,115
62,294
67,799
6,582
303,790
Mobile
24,160
12,526
23,740
1,981
62,407
Total
319,293
136,771
154,830
22,475
633,369
Appendix
Table 9: Distribution of grounding capabilities across platforms.
Figure 6: Examples of element metadata from live screenshot crawling. Left: a real screenshot, cropped to the region containing metadata, with all element boxes in this region that survive filtering, colored by category (“(none)” marks elements without a category). Right: three numbered elements from the same screenshot, zoomed in, with their stored records (bounding box, text, and category).
Graphical user interface (GUI) grounding is a key capability for computer-use agents, mapping natural-language instructions to actionable regions on the screen. Existing Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) approaches typically formulate GUI grounding as a text-based coordinate generation task. However, directly generating precise coordinates from visual inputs is challenging and often data-intensive. A more intuitive strategy is to first identify instruction-relevant visual patches and then determine the exact click location within them. Motivated by recent observations that general MLLMs exhibit native grounding ability embedded in their attention maps, we propose GUI-AIMA, an attention-based and coordinate-free supervised fine-tuning framework for efficient GUI grounding. GUI-AIMA aligns the intrinsic multimodal attention of MLLMs with patch-wise grounding signals. These signals are calculated adaptively for diverse user instructions by multi-head aggregation on simplified query-visual attention matrices. Besides, its coordinate-free manner can easily integrate a plug-and-play zoom-in stage. GUI-AIMA-3B was trained with only 509k samples (around 101k screenshots), demonstrating exceptional data efficiency and verifying that light training can trigger the native grounding capability of MLLMs. It achieves state-of-the-art performance among 3B models, attaining an average accuracy of 61.5% on ScreenSpot-Pro, 92.1% on ScreenSpot-v2, 68.1% on OSWorld-G, 79.1% on MMBench-GUI-L2, and 60.0% on UI-Vision. Project page: https://github.com/sjz5202/GUI-AIMA .
Existing agentic reinforcement learning methods for GUI grounding have limitations at two levels. At the data level, current approaches typically treat all training samples equally, although their training value to the baseline model varies with difficulty. Overlooking this can greatly reduce training efficiency or even cause collapse. At the strategy level, existing frameworks struggle to balance the trade-off between cropping larger regions for sufficient context and smaller ones for reduced redundancy, a tension inherent to tool-augmented grounding agents. In addition, overly complex decision-making is difficult for small-parameter models and significantly increases inference time. To address these issues, at the data level, we propose GUI-D, a data mining and difficulty scoring pipeline that identifies the training-worthy samples by proper testing and assigns difficulty scores to guide subsequent training weights. At the strategy level, we propose GUI-C2, which employs an area-gated coarse-to-fine refinement mechanism that progressively narrows the visual field via model-internal uncertainty signals, adaptively reserving context for large targets while amplifying precision for small ones, reinforced by improvement-aware stage rewards that ensure each refinement genuinely advances grounding. Meanwhile, we simplify the decision-making process to greatly reduce additional inference time. Finally, extensive experiments show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance. The code and data will be publicly available.
GUI agents powered by Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in understanding and executing user instructions. However, accurately grounding instruction-relevant elements from high-resolution screenshots cluttered with irrelevant UI components remains challenging for existing approaches. Inspired by how humans dynamically adjust their perceptual scope to locate task-related regions on complex screens, we propose DRS-GUI, a training-free dynamic region search framework for GUI grounding that can be seamlessly integrated into existing MLLMs. DRS-GUI introduces a lightweight UI Perceptor that performs three human-like perceptual actions (Focus, Shift, and Scatter) to progressively explore the interface and generate region proposals. To dynamically schedule these actions, we further design an Action Planner based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). A region quality reward is employed to evaluate and select the highly instruction-relevant region, efficiently pruning redundant UI elements. Experiments demonstrate that DRS-GUI yields a 14% improvement on ScreenSpot-Pro for general and GUI-specific MLLMs (Qwen2.5-VL-7B and UGround-V1-7B), significantly enhancing grounding performance and generalization.
Yichao Liu, Huawen Shen, Liu Yu +3
1Nankai University · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences