Multimodal Large Language Models have shown promising performance in computer-use tasks, from planning user workflows to grounding natural-language actions to precise UI targets. Existing end-to-end benchmarks primarily emphasize long-horizon task completion, while GUI grounding benchmarks remain focused on conventional controls and a limited set of professional interfaces. We introduce POINTERBENCH, a diagnostic suite of 1,500 screenshot-instruction pairs probing three complementary capabilities: thin sub-element identification and geometric grounding in spreadsheets (POINTERBENCH-Sheets), character-level grounding in long-text documents (POINTERBENCH-Text), and mixed GUI grounding across 100 professional applications (POINTERBENCH-Pro). We carefully curate each task with pixel-exact target geometry and evaluate both general-purpose multimodal models and 39 specialist GUI grounding configurations. We find text grounding to be the most challenging setting, with Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and the leading native specialist UI-Venus-2-9B achieving 69.6%, 53.4%, and 25.8% success on POINTERBENCH-Text despite respective 83.2%, 77.7%, and 54.5% average success across POINTERBENCH. These results reveal substantial headroom in fine-grained GUI grounding across frontier and specialist models. We publicly release the benchmark and evaluation code at https://github.com/warmwindOS/pointerbench.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: PointerBench evaluates fine-grained grounding across spreadsheet geometry, character-level text targets, and professional interfaces. Results reveal substantial headroom and pronounced differences across model families.
Claude
GPT
Grok
Kimi
Gemini
Qwen
Sonnet 4.6
Fable 5
Opus 5
5.6 Luna
5.6 Terra
5.6 Sol
4.5
K2.5
3.7 Flash
3.8 Max
Sheets
88.8
97.6
98.8
92.0
91.6
97.8
15.2
10.8
4.0
4.8
Text
49.0
69.6
63.2
46.6
47.6
53.4
1.4
3.4
1.2
0.2
Pro
78.8
82.4
81.2
79.4
77.6
82.0
14.0
3.0
4.2
3.4
Avg.
72.2
83.2
81.1
72.7
72.3
77.7
10.2
5.7
3.1
2.8
Table 1: Success rate (%) on the three PointerBench subsets. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined , respectively.
UI-TARS
GTA1
OpenCUA
UI-Venus
MAI-UI
MVP
1.5-7B
7B
32B
7B
32B
Ground-7B
1.5-8B
2-9B
2B
8B
8B
32B
Sheets
46.2
60.2
65.0
59.8
66.0
47.8
56.4
64.2
36.6
59.2
60.4
68.4
Text
18.2
22.8
29.6
18.4
19.4
24.6
23.8
25.8
9.8
23.2
22.4
34.0
Pro
57.4
67.4
70.2
63.8
67.4
66.2
72.8
73.6
61.0
71.6
70.8
75.4
Avg.
40.6
50.1
54.9
47.3
50.9
46.2
51.0
54.5
35.8
51.3
51.2
59.3
Table 2: Success rate (%) of specialist GUI grounding configurations on the three PointerBench subsets (full 39-run evaluation in Appendix G ). Best and second-best results are bold and underlined , respectively.
Model
Word
Character
Punctuation
Caret
Interface text
Region
Claude Fable 5
90.2
70.4
78.3
64.7
82.4
56.0
Claude Opus 5
83.9
51.9
39.1
62.6
82.4
50.7
GPT-5.6 Sol
76.8
48.1
56.5
51.9
100.0
30.6
Qwen3-VL-32B + MVP
69.6
18.5
43.5
34.2
76.5
0.0
GTA1-32B
70.5
11.1
39.1
22.5
88.2
0.0
UI-Venus-2-9B
52.7
11.1
26.1
25.7
76.5
0.0
Table 3: PointerBench -Text accuracy (%) by target objective for the top frontier models (top) and representative UI specialist configurations (bottom). Region groups bounding-box targets; other columns score point-coordinate predictions. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Figure 2: PointerBench -Text caret accuracy by placement objective.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Family
Fine-grained targets
#
Cell
reference (82), reference with content (45), content (43)
Table 4: Task composition of PointerBench -Sheets. Counts sum to 500 examples.
Objective
Target type
#
Word
word-level locations
112
Character
individual characters
27
Punctuation
punctuation marks
23
Caret
insertion positions within and around text
187
Region
text spans and structured document fields
134
Interface text
text in document-interface controls
17
Appendix
Table 5: Task composition of PointerBench -Text. Region groups bounding-box targets; the remaining groups require point predictions.
Figure 3: Application-domain coverage of PointerBench -Pro. Each of the 100 applications contributes five examples; numbers in parentheses denote the number of applications in each domain.
Figure 4: Spatial and geometric distributions of PointerBench targets. Top: normalized target-center distributions and their marginals. Bottom: target area as a percentage of the 1024×768 screen; dashed lines mark suite medians.
Figure 5: Normalized target width and height by suite, shown as percentages of the corresponding screen dimension on a logarithmic scale.
Model
Disabled
Low
Medium
Claude Fable 5
–
Yes
Yes
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
GPT-5.6 Luna
Yes
Yes
Yes
GPT-5.6 Sol
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grok 4.20
Yes
–
Yes
Qwen3.6 Flash
Yes
–
Yes
Appendix
Table 6: Reasoning settings available for the six models in the controlled reasoning study. A dash denotes an unavailable setting.
Model
Setting
Sheets
Text
Pro
Avg.
Claude Fable 5
Low
95.8
67.4
82.2
81.8
Claude Fable 5
Medium
97.6
69.6
82.4
83.2
GPT-5.6 Sol
Disabled
85.6
40.0
76.8
67.5
GPT-5.6 Sol
Low
96.4
54.6
80.8
77.3
GPT-5.6 Sol
Medium
97.8
53.4
82.0
77.7
GPT-5.6 Luna
Disabled
58.8
27.2
68.8
51.6
Appendix
Table 7: Success rate (%) across available reasoning settings.
Model
Δ (pp)
Corrected
Regressed
p
Claude Sonnet 4.6
−1.80
22
49
0.00182
GPT-5.6 Luna
+19.20
337
49
5.59×10−54
GPT-5.6 Sol
+9.80
199
52
1.90×10−21
Appendix
Table 8: Paired comparison of low reasoning against reasoning disabled. Corrected denotes an incorrect-to-correct transition; regressed denotes the reverse. Reported p -values use two-sided exact McNemar tests.
Model
Cell (170)
Header (59)
Color (56)
Relative (60)
Edge (116)
Corner (39)
Claude Fable 5
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.3
91.4
97.4
Claude Opus 5
100.0
100.0
98.2
98.3
98.3
94.9
GPT-5.6 Sol
98.8
100.0
100.0
96.7
95.7
94.9
GPT-5.6 Luna
95.3
98.3
96.4
95.0
81.0
89.7
Grok 4.5
15.9
33.9
28.6
16.7
2.6
0.0
Appendix
Table 9: PointerBench -Sheets accuracy (%) by target group. Counts are shown in the column headers.
Model
Text (154)
Other controls (156)
Icon (190)
Claude Fable 5
92.9
85.9
71.1
Claude Opus 5
92.2
83.3
70.5
GPT-5.6 Sol
90.9
81.4
75.3
GPT-5.6 Luna
89.0
81.4
70.0
Grok 4.5
20.8
16.0
6.8
Appendix
Table 10: PointerBench -Pro accuracy (%) by target type.
Model
English
Non-English
Claude Fable 5
69.6
69.6
Claude Opus 5
59.6
66.8
GPT-5.6 Sol
53.2
53.6
GPT-5.6 Luna
45.6
47.6
Grok 4.5
1.6
1.2
Appendix
Table 11: PointerBench -Text accuracy (%) by language group. Each group contains 250 examples.
Model
Correct
Clipped
Oversized
Both
Wrong region
Invalid
Claude Fable 5
56.0
6.0
26.1
10.4
1.5
0.0
Claude Opus 5
50.7
12.7
26.1
7.5
3.0
0.0
GPT-5.6 Sol
30.6
39.6
15.7
9.0
3.0
2.2
GPT-5.6 Luna
26.1
41.8
9.7
10.4
8.2
3.7
Grok 4.5
0.7
3.0
3.7
18.7
73.9
0.0
Appendix
Table 12: Outcome distribution (%) on the 134 PointerBench -Text bounding-box targets. Clipped and oversized boxes fail only the coverage or precision requirement, respectively; “both” fails both requirements.
Model
Official
Converted
Δ
Gemini 3.7 Flash
3.1
78.1
+74.9
Qwen3.8 Max
2.8
55.4
+52.6
Qwen3.6 Flash (Medium)
1.5
31.9
+30.3
Appendix
Table 13: Coordinate-frame diagnostic. Official scores use unmodified model outputs; converted scores apply a fixed 0 – 1000 to 1024×768 transformation and are not leaderboard results.
Rank
Provider
Model
Sheets
Text
Pro
Avg.
1
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
97.6
69.6
82.4
83.2
2
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5
98.8
63.2
81.2
81.1
3
OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Sol
97.8
53.4
82.0
77.7
4
OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Luna
92.0
46.6
79.4
72.7
5
OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Terra
91.6
47.6
77.6
72.3
6
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.6
88.8
49.0
78.8
72.2
Appendix
Table 14: Full PointerBench evaluation. Success rate (%) on the three benchmark suites. Newly evaluated Gemini and Qwen entries use official raw outputs without coordinate-frame post-processing.
Rank
Family
Model
Sheets
Text
Pro
Avg.
1
MVP
Qwen3-VL-32B
68.4
34.0
75.4
59.3
2
GTA1
32B
65.0
29.6
70.2
54.9
3
UI-Venus
2-9B
64.2
25.8
73.6
54.5
4
MAI-UI
8B
59.2
23.2
71.6
51.3
5
MVP
Qwen3-VL-8B
60.4
22.4
70.8
51.2
6
UI-Venus
1.5-8B
56.4
23.8
72.8
51.0
Appendix
Table 15: Specialist GUI grounding results on PointerBench . Success rate (%) on the three suites. Best and second-best results in each column are bold and underlined.
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 .
GUI grounding models report over 85% accuracy on standard benchmarks, yet drop 27-56 percentage points when instructions require spatial reasoning rather than direct element naming. Current benchmarks miss this because they evaluate each screenshot once with a single fixed instruction. We introduce GUI-Perturbed, a controlled perturbation framework that independently varies visual scenes and instructions to measure grounding robustness. Evaluating three 7B models from the same architecture lineage, we find that relational instructions cause systematic accuracy collapse across all models, a 70% browser zoom produces statistically significant degradation, and rank-8 LoRA fine-tuning with augmented data degrades performance rather than improving it. By perturbing along independent axes, GUI-Perturbed isolates which specific capability axes are affected-spatial reasoning, visual robustness, reasoning calibration-providing diagnostic signal that aggregate benchmarks cannot. We release the dataset, augmentation pipeline, and a fine-tuned model.
GUI grounding, the task of locating the interface element specified by a user instruction, is a fundamental capability of GUI agents. However, existing grounding models remain error-prone, often causing downstream task failures. We systematically evaluate 10 grounding models across five datasets and identify a major error pattern: most incorrect clicks hit non-target interface elements rather than the background, with different models repeatedly selecting the same distractors. Motivated by these findings, we propose ConClick, a contrastive learning framework that teaches models to distinguish the target element from plausible distractors. We construct ConClick-Data, a dataset containing 4,292 challenging target-distractor pairs, and train the model using complementary listwise ranking and pairwise margin objectives. ConClick improves the grounding accuracy of Qwen3-VL-8B from 54.71% to 66.03% on ScreenSpot-Pro, from 83.72% to 86.28% on MMBench-GUI L2, and from 63.33% to 70.20% on OSWorld-G, outperforming prior methods built on the same or similarly sized backbones. We further introduce ReClick, an inference-time strategy that revisits promising regions and compares predictions across competing candidates, yielding an additional 2.96 percentage-point improvement in average accuracy across the three benchmarks. Together, our analysis, dataset, and methods provide both empirical insights and practical tools for building more reliable GUI agents. Data and code are available at https://github.com/zhangruotian/ConClick.