GUI agents built on vision-language models interact with continuously evolving interfaces, yet conventional inference repeatedly recomputes representations of largely overlapping observations and histories. This mismatch makes multi-step interaction costly, while changes in context, interface content, and action arguments prevent straightforward cache reuse. We introduce GUIFlow, a framework for full-pipeline incremental inference in multi-image GUI interaction. Our central insight is that advancing a decision need not require rebuilding all supporting representations: each interaction step can instead selectively update computational states maintained across the trajectory. To support new decisions as the context evolves, GUIFlow adapts how past computation is reused: historical KV states are position-aligned and injected into the current context; change signals guide selective updates of current-observation states in the vision encoder and language model; and earlier action responses serve as speculative drafts verified by the target model. Together, these mechanisms enable cross-step reuse throughout visual encoding, prefill, and decoding without additional training, a separate draft model, or changes to the model-visible inputs and action interface. Experiments demonstrate up to 3.39x geometric-mean speedup across offline multi-image benchmarks and up to 3.49x in online, closed-loop interaction on OSWorld, while maintaining task performance broadly comparable to the dense baseline.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Incremental changes in GUI observations and internal representations. (a–c) Image-level changes. A local edit modifies only a small part of successive screenshots; across the evaluated tasks, more than 70% of observation pairs have RGB-image error at most 5% at each temporal gap Δt∈{1,2,3,4} . (d–f) Representation-level changes. For the same observation pair, KV-drift maps at layer 6 and the final layer 36 show broadly similar spatial concentrations of change. Along the illustrated trajectory, a large share of tokens has small KV drift ( dK,dV≤0.1 ) during stable-interface segments, with drops around substantial interface changes. Together, these observations motivate selectively updating changing states rather than rebuilding all representations at every step.
Figure 2: Overview of GUIFlow. GUIFlow treats successive GUI decisions as incremental updates to existing computation rather than independent inference passes. (A) Historical State Integration. Historical KV states are positionally aligned and injected into the current context. (B) Current-Observation Refinement. Pixel changes guide visual-encoder updates, while source-aware KV deviations guide deeper language-model updates. (C) Verified Incremental Decoding. Conditioned on the prefill state formed by (A) and (B), the target model verifies historical response drafts, accepting matching tokens and correcting mismatches. Together, these mechanisms exploit temporal redundancy across visual encoding, prefill, and decoding without additional training or a separate draft model.
AITW
Mind2Web
Model
Method
Action Matching (%) ↑
FLOPs (T) ↓
Speedup ( × ) ↑
Step SR (%) ↑
FLOPs (T) ↓
Speedup ( × ) ↑
Geo. Mean ( × ) ↑
Qwen3-VL 4B-Instruct
Dense
61.20
31.94
1.00
49.77
43.97
1.00
1.00
FastV
60.26
22.14
1.44
48.31
30.10
1.46
1.45
VisionZip
60.23
18.91
1.69
42.09
24.90
1.77
1.73
GUI-KV
58.59
31.94
1.00
49.25
43.96
1.00
1.00
STaR-KV
60.34
31.93
1.00
49.61
43.95
1.00
1.00
Table 1: Main results on offline multi-image navigation. FLOPs (T) are averaged per step; speedup is the Dense/method FLOPs ratio, with an equal-weight geometric mean across datasets. GUIFlow achieves 3.37 – 3.39× geometric-mean speedups while maintaining scores close to Dense.
Model
Method
Mean Score (%) ↑
Strict SR (%) ↑
FLOPs (T) ↓
Speedup ( × ) ↑
Qwen3-VL 8B-Instruct
Dense
24.30
23.55
247.01
1.00
FastV
23.16
22.16
165.50
1.49
VisionZip
21.22
20.22
161.48
1.53
GUI-KV
22.81
21.61
246.54
1.00
HistPrune
20.82
19.94
194.52
1.27
DivPrune
22.93
22.71
185.89
1.33
Table 2: Main results on online OSWorld interaction. FLOPs (T) are averaged per step/request for each evaluated run; speedups are Dense/method mean FLOPs ratios across rollout trajectories. GUIFlow achieves 3.32 – 3.49× speedups relative to Dense.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of task execution time on an OSWorld task. Dense inference and GUIFlow complete the same seven interaction stages. GUIFlow reduces task execution time from 25.76 to 11.95 seconds, corresponding to a 2.16× speedup and 13.81 seconds saved. The horizontal axis measures cumulative task execution time.
Benchmark
Model
FLOPs (T) ↓
Total Latency (ms) ↓
Speedup
FLOPs
Latency
( × ) ↑
( × ) ↑
AITW
Qwen3-VL-4B
9.23
470.64
3.46
1.96
UI-TARS-1.5-7B
18.33
547.23
3.41
1.94
Mind2Web
Qwen3-VL-4B
13.37
633.91
3.29
1.97
UI-TARS-1.5-7B
25.49
603.08
3.37
2.32
Table 3: FLOPs and wall-clock efficiency of GUIFlow. Total latency covers per-step processing and inference, excluding environment execution. Speedups use Dense/GUIFlow ratios of unrounded means; online records come from different trajectories.
Enabled Components
Task Performance
Inference Cost
History KV
Sparse Vision
Token Lease
Spec. Decode
Mean Score (%) ↑
Strict SR (%) ↑
FLOPs (T/task) ↓
Total (s/task) ↓
–
–
–
–
24.30
23.55
2981.19
45.43
✓
–
–
–
27.33
26.32
1010.29
29.54
✓
✓
–
–
26.21
24.93
962.02
29.35
✓
✓
✓
–
25.43
24.65
819.07
27.51
✓
✓
✓
✓
27.90
26.87
841.33
17.85
Table 4: Cumulative component ablation on Qwen3-VL-8B in OSWorld. Checkmarks indicate enabled components; quality uses 361 tasks, with missing results scored as zero. TokenLease uses Lp=6 and Mcur=3 in both enabled configurations. FLOPs and Total average valid task measurements; Total sums server processing time and excludes environment execution.
Sweep
Setting
Mean Score (%) ↑
Strict SR (%) ↑
FLOPs (T/step) ↓
Total (s/step) ↓
Probe Depth ( Mcur=2 )
Lp=3
24.28
23.27
224.70
3.59
Lp=6†
27.35
26.59
228.22
3.56
Lp=9
26.48
25.48
230.43
3.58
Lp=12
25.25
24.65
231.01
3.62
Reuse Limit ( Lp=6 )
Mcur=1
25.93
24.65
226.28
3.57
Mcur=2
27.35
26.59
228.22
3.56
Table 5: Sensitivity to TokenLease probe depth and reuse limit on Qwen3-VL-8B in OSWorld. The layer sweep fixes Mcur=2 , and the reuse-limit sweep fixes Lp=6 . † marks the shared default value of the swept parameter; quality uses all 361 tasks, with missing results scored as zero. Bold marks the best value within each sweep.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Method
Cross-Task Step SR ↑
Cross-Website Step SR ↑
Cross-Domain Step SR ↑
Avg. Step SR ↑
Speedup ( × ) ↑
Qwen3-VL 4B-Instruct
Dense
51.11
48.37
49.84
49.77
1.00
FastV
49.55
46.73
48.64
48.31
1.46
VisionZip
42.36
41.23
42.69
42.09
1.77
GUI-KV
51.59
47.06
49.09
49.25
1.00
STaR-KV
51.40
47.81
49.63
49.61
1.00
Op-Skip
54.18
52.48
53.56
53.41
1.29
Appendix
Table A1: Split-level results on Mind2Web. Step SR (%) is macro-averaged within each split, and Avg. is the unweighted mean across the three splits. Speedup is the Dense/method mean FLOPs ratio; bold denotes the best result for each model.
Application
Tasks
Request change (%)
FLOPs/request speedup ( × )
Task FLOPs speedup ( × )
Score change (pp)
Chrome
46
+40.4
3.27
2.33
−0.01
GIMP
26
+14.2
3.44
3.01
−3.85
LibreOffice Calc
47
−5.6
3.23
3.42
−6.38
LibreOffice Impress
47
−16.8
3.67
4.41
+4.26
LibreOffice Writer
23
+45.5
3.45
2.37
−8.70
Multi-Apps
93
+5.7
3.19
3.02
−1.08
Appendix
Table A2: Category-level efficiency and quality on OSWorld with GUI-Owl-1.5-8B. Request and score changes are measured relative to Dense; FLOPs speedups are computed as Dense/GUIFlow. Overall covers all 361 tasks; efficiency uses valid measurements.
Sweep
Setting
Effective Tasks
Lease Acceptance (%)
Reused Image Tokens (%)
FLOPs Reduction (%)
Latency Speedup ( × )
Probe Depth ( Mcur=2 )
Lp=3
359
91.66
30.66
9.07
1.05
Lp=6†
359
91.59
29.95
7.53
1.06
Lp=9
359
91.66
25.46
6.73
1.05
Lp=12
359
91.56
23.64
6.23
1.04
Reuse Limit ( Lp=6 )
Mcur=1
359
91.54
25.60
8.08
1.05
Mcur=2
359
91.59
29.95
7.53
1.06
Appendix
Table A3: Mechanistic statistics of TokenLease on Qwen3-VL-8B in OSWorld. The probe-depth sweep fixes Mcur=2 , and the reuse-limit sweep fixes Lp=6 . FLOPs reduction and latency speedup are paired against Dense on common task-step keys; † marks the shared default value of the swept parameter.
Figure 4: Additional presentation-editing trajectories. GUIFlow preserves all interaction stages while reducing cumulative task execution time by 11.11 and 20.62 seconds, respectively.
Figure 5: Additional file- and email-organization trajectories. GUIFlow saves 14.05 and 17.53 seconds while retaining the completed task sequence.
Figure 6: Additional document- and image-editing trajectories. GUIFlow saves 8.97 and 13.17 seconds while completing the same editing stages as Dense inference.
Figure 7: Additional system-configuration and code-editing trajectories. GUIFlow saves 22.61 and 14.39 seconds, respectively, while preserving all interaction stages.
Graphical user interface (GUI) agents built on vision-language models have emerged as a promising approach to automate human-computer workflows. However, they also face the inefficiency challenge as they process long sequences of high-resolution screenshots and solving long-horizon tasks, making inference slow, costly and memory-bound. While key-value (KV) caching can mitigate this, storing the full cache is prohibitive for image-heavy contexts. Existing cache-compression methods are sub-optimal as they do not account for the spatial and temporal redundancy of GUIs. In this work, we first analyze attention patterns in GUI agent workloads and find that, unlike in natural images, attention sparsity is uniformly high across all transformer layers. This insight motivates a simple uniform budget allocation strategy, which we show empirically outperforms more complex layer-varying schemes. Building on this, we introduce GUI-KV, a plug-and-play KV cache compression method for GUI agents that requires no retraining. GUI-KV combines two novel techniques: (i) spatial saliency guidance, which augments attention scores with the L2 norm of hidden states to better preserve semantically important visual tokens, and (ii) temporal redundancy scoring, which projects previous frames' keys onto the current frame's key subspace to preferentially prune redundant history. Across standard GUI agent benchmarks and models, GUI-KV outperforms competitive KV compression baselines, closely matching full-cache accuracy at modest budgets. Notably, in a 5-screenshot setting on the AgentNetBench benchmark, GUI-KV reduces decoding FLOPs by 38.9% while increasing step accuracy by 4.1% over the full-cache baseline. These results demonstrate that exploiting GUI-specific redundancies enables efficient and reliable agent performance.
Kung-Hsiang Huang, Haoyi Qiu, Yutong Dai +2
Salesforce AI Research · University of California, Los Angeles
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have recently emerged as promising backbones for GUI-agent models, where high-resolution GUI screenshots are introduced to the prompts at each iteration step. However, these screenshots exhibit highly non-uniform spatial information density: large regions may carry little information and are visually homogeneous, while key text and icons may require high visual fidelity. Existing approaches to this problem either require additional training or rely on attention-based token compression, ignoring the structured layout and spatial redundancy of GUI screenshots. To fill the gap, this paper proposes AquaUI, a training-free inference-time token reduction method for GUI agent models that utilizes the non-uniform information density in screenshots. AQuaUI constructs an adaptive quadtree on each screenshot input and keeps one representative merged token per leaf of the quadtree. AQuaUI preserves the spatial positions of retained tokens throughout the pipeline to ensure that all position-encoding stages remain consistent. To further improve temporal consistency across multi-step GUI interactions, we propose a conditional quadtree algorithm that leverages the continuity between consecutive screenshots within a single request. Specifically, it refines the current quadtree using previous quadtrees as references, helping preserve fine-grained regions across static or mildly shifted GUI states. We implement AQuaUI on state-of-the-art GUI agent models and conduct experiments on standard grounding and navigational benchmarks. AQuaUI consistently shows improved accuracy-efficiency trade-offs over prior baselines. Notably, on GUI-Owl-1.5-32B-Instruct, AQuaUI achieves up to 13.22% speedup and 29.52% fewer visual tokens while retaining 99.06% of full-token performance, suggesting that the spatial redundancy of GUI screenshots can be exploited at inference without retraining.
Running GUI agents on edge devices can keep sensitive screens and interaction histories local, but the computational cost of inference at every action step makes deployment challenging. Existing GUI agent systems either perform full vision-language model (VLM) inference at each action step or reuse coarse-grained knowledge matched to prior tasks. However, dynamic mobile environments and user tasks make it difficult to fully utilize prior task executions without additional fine-tuning or task-specific offline exploration. To address this challenge, we present PastForward, a system that accelerates GUI agents through validated, fine-grained reuse of computational experience accumulated during ordinary task execution. During decoding, PastForward retrieves prior output sequences as device-adaptive multi-token proposals and verifies them in a single VLM forward pass. Across action steps, it uses prior GUI transitions to begin next-step inference while the device executes the current action, retains the early computation only when the predicted screen matches the observed screen, and carries reusable KV states forward. We evaluate PastForward on AndroidWorld workloads derived from real mobile usage patterns using multiple VLM backbones across server and edge platforms. On device, PastForward achieves action-step latency speedups of 1.63-2.36× while maintaining task success rates.