How GUI Agents Fail: GraceBench for Execution Stability Diagnosis
Organizations: Institute of AI for Engineering, Tongji University
Abstract
As GUI agents are increasingly deployed for mobile task automation, their reliability depends not only on final task outcomes, but also on whether they reach these outcomes through stable interaction trajectories. In automation workflows, unnecessary actions, detours, and execution errors can add noise to collected data, introduce irreversible side effects, or undermine trust, even when the agent eventually completes the task. It is therefore important to systematically diagnose the execution stability, including whether an agent deviates from a feasible path, enters a loop, becomes stagnant, or recovers from unstable actions. Existing benchmarks, however, primarily assess final task success or a small set of intermediate milestones, leaving step-level execution behavior unclear. To bridge this gap, we introduce GraceBench, an online evaluation framework that represents the reachable interaction space of mobile applications as UI Transition Graphs (UTGs), providing a structural reference for step-level execution diagnosis. To support reliable alignment between dynamic UI observations and graph states, GraceBench uses video-grounded trajectory evaluation over this graph-aligned representation, assessing process stability beyond final success with metrics such as deviation rate, loop burden rate, and recovery ability. GraceBench contains 169 tasks spanning 10 applications and constructs 10 UTGs with 2,909 canonical GUI states and 3,116 observed transitions. Across 3,718 trajectories, GraceBench shows that outcome scores hide execution instability: GPT-5.6 Sol achieves the highest success rate (SR) but the lowest recovery ability, 51.24% of successful runs still contain a deviation or loop, and trajectories with the same success rate (SR) and completion rate (CR) can differ substantially in recovery behavior. Code and data will be released on https://iaie-physicalai.github.io/GraceBench.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Venue | Process Eval | Online Env. | Multi-Path | Graph Ref. | Stability Metrics | Video Ev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroidWorld ( Rawles et al., 2025 ) | ICLR 2025 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| SPA-Bench ( Chen et al., 2025 ) | ICLR 2025 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| A3 ( Chai et al., 2026a ) | Findings ACL 2026 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| AndroidDaily ( Sui et al., 2026 ) | arXiv 2026 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| ProBench ( Yang et al., 2025 ) | AAAI 2026 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| ColorBench ( Song et al., 2025 ) | WWW 2026 | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Detailed instruction | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | SR | CR | DR | LBR | RA | RSR | ARL |
| GUI-specific | GUI-Owl-1.5-8B-Instruct | 0.1657 | 0.4403 | 0.3306 | 0.5559 | 0.6603 | 0.8212 | 1.6877 |
| UI-TARS-1.5-7B | 0.1006 | 0.2956 | 0.5149 | 0.5133 | 0.6017 | 0.7888 | 1.9501 | |
| General open-source | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | 0.5148 | 0.6099 | 0.1348 | 0.5934 | 0.5602 | 0.6987 | 1.8716 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 0.5976 | 0.7304 | 0.0743 | 0.4470 | 0.5605 | 0.6857 | 1.4583 | |
| Qwen3.8-Flash | 0.3254 | 0.4474 | 0.1591 | 0.6606 | 0.5834 | 0.7819 | 1.7755 | |
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Task domain | Application/scenario assignment | Tasks | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social & Video Entertainment | TikTok; Xiaohongshu; Hongguo Short Drama | 33 | 19.53% |
| Local Services | Douyin (Group Buying); Dianping | 26 | 15.38% |
| E-commerce | Douyin (Mall); Douyin Mall | 22 | 13.02% |
| Account & General Services | Douyin (Home Sidebar; Profile) | 16 | 9.47% |
| Content Creation | Douyin (Content Creation) | 15 | 8.88% |
| Music | Qishui Music | 14 | 8.28% |
| Detailed instruction | Concise instruction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Success | Failure | Gap | Success | Failure | Gap |
| DR | 0.0889 | 0.3067 | +0.2178 | 0.1412 | 0.3618 | +0.2206 |
| Loop incidence | 0.2066 | 0.6525 | +0.4459 | 0.2748 | 0.6520 | +0.3772 |
| LBR | 0.4257 | 0.6390 | +0.2133 | 0.4840 | 0.6142 | +0.1302 |
| RA | 0.7285 | 0.5668 | -0.1618 | 0.6394 | 0.5918 | -0.0476 |
| Model | SR | CR | DR | LBR | RA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UI-TARS-1.5-7B | +0.0532 | +0.0687 | -0.0061 | -0.0561 | -0.0004 |
| GUI-Owl-1.5-8B-Instruct | +0.0710 | -0.0010 | +0.0501 | -0.0518 | -0.0163 |
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | -0.1006 | -0.0936 | +0.0780 | +0.0173 | +0.0418 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | +0.0355 | -0.0354 | +0.0043 | +0.0158 | +0.0850 |
| Qwen3.8-27B | -0.0474 | -0.0684 | +0.0621 | +0.0120 | -0.0293 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | +0.0296 | -0.0628 | +0.0560 | -0.0181 | -0.0045 |
| Measure | Pairs | Mean change | 95% task-cluster interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| DR | 426 | 0.0467 | [0.0236, 0.0713] |
| Loop incidence | 426 | 0.0423 | [-0.0072, 0.0922] |
| LBR | 34 | 0.0339 | [-0.0653, 0.1232] |
| RA | 96 | -0.0911 | [-0.1717, -0.0133] |
| CR | 426 | -0.0591 | [-0.0879, -0.0325] |
| Excluded unit | SR range | CR range | DR range |
|---|---|---|---|
| One model | [0.0024, 0.0195] | [-0.0427, -0.0218] | [0.0485, 0.0581] |
| One scenario | [-0.0057, 0.0183] | [-0.0365, -0.0153] | [0.0345, 0.0598] |
| Outcome | Metric | Large / eligible | Fraction | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Success | DR | 410/1779 | 0.2305 | [0.1815, 0.2806] |
| Success | LBR | 42/101 | 0.4158 | [0.2778, 0.5333] |
| Success | RA | 153/287 | 0.5331 | [0.4492, 0.6227] |
| Failure | DR | 926/1939 | 0.4776 | [0.4417, 0.5128] |
| Failure | LBR | 425/856 | 0.4965 | [0.4567, 0.5348] |
| Failure | RA | 860/1444 | 0.5956 | [0.5613, 0.6298] |
| Metric | Detailed | Permutation | Concise | Permutation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DR | 0.9516 [0.8636, 0.9909] | 0.9228 [0.8182, 0.9727] | ||
| LBR | 0.9284 [0.8182, 0.9909] | 0.8381 [0.6727, 0.9636] | 0.0001 | |
| RSR | 0.8100 [0.6182, 0.9364] | 0.0002 | 0.8269 [0.7091, 0.9364] | 0.0002 |
| ARL | 0.5816 [0.2455, 0.8727] | 0.0042 | 0.5880 [0.1998, 0.8636] | 0.0039 |
| RA | 0.5983 [0.3000, 0.8818] | 0.0029 | 0.8508 [0.6361, 0.9636] |
| Target | Added metric | Relative gain | MSE reduction | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log duration | DR | 0.0336 | 0.0040 | [0.0015, 0.0065] |
| Log duration | LBR | 0.0431 | 0.0052 | [0.0033, 0.0071] |
| Log duration | RA | 0.0642 | 0.0079 | [0.0057, 0.0103] |
| Steps | DR | 0.0571 | 0.4599 | [0.2865, 0.6385] |
| Steps | LBR | 0.0416 | 0.3296 | [0.2165, 0.4413] |
| Steps | RA | 0.0929 | 0.7780 | [0.5955, 0.9621] |
| Application | Tasks | States | Transitions | Branch states | Mean / max steps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douyin | 63 | 827 | 763 | 91 | 6.60 / 11 |
| Dianping | 12 | 206 | 237 | 29 | 9.25 / 10 |
| Douyin Mall | 12 | 268 | 311 | 41 | 6.42 / 12 |
| Fanqie Novel | 11 | 312 | 361 | 38 | 8.00 / 15 |
| Amap | 14 | 171 | 189 | 33 | 7.14 / 9 |
| Hongguo | 14 | 370 | 399 | 47 | 8.93 / 11 |
| Measure | Mean | 95% CI | Median | IQR | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core task states | 5.91 | [5.62, 6.18] | 6 | [5, 7] | [1, 11] |
| Additional one-hop states | 35.19 | [32.88, 37.66] | 34 | [24, 43] | [6, 102] |
| One-hop closure | 41.09 | [38.62, 43.69] | 40 | [30, 49] | [7, 112] |
| Per-task expansion factor | 7.20 | [6.82, 7.59] | 7.14 | [5.33, 8.80] | [2.80, 15.50] |
| Field | Cohen’s |
|---|---|
| State match | 0.7980 |
| Deviation | 0.7952 |
| Recovery | 0.7663 |
| Loop | 0.8656 |
Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks
Computer-use agent benchmarks test whether AI systems can operate graphical interfaces, terminals, and applications reliably, safely, and efficiently.
See all 119 papers