Trajectory-level GRPO is a common approach for training multi-step GUI agents, but repeatedly rolling out complete trajectories from the task root can be inefficient: task-level rewards provide coarse supervision over which intermediate decisions require improvement, while already-mastered prefixes are repeatedly re-executed before reaching difficult states. We introduce a two-stage adaptive training framework that jointly addresses where to learn and how far to roll out. We first construct reusable intermediate checkpoints from successful expert trajectories and select informative pivots using action disagreement, which measures uncertainty directly from sampled GUI actions. Stage I performs one-step RL at these pivots to improve uncertain local decisions. Stage II then progressively expands policy responsibility through adaptive Local, Suffix, and Root training according to task progress. Recoverable checkpoints enable repeated training from intermediate states without replaying the preceding trajectory. Across MobileGym and CUA-Gym-Hub, our method reduces environment interaction by 56-61% relative to Vanilla GRPO while improving task performance, demonstrating that jointly allocating training across states and rollout ranges can substantially improve GUI-agent RL efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of standard trajectory-level GRPO and our efficient adaptive training framework. Vanilla GRPO repeatedly traverses mastered prefixes and provides sparse trajectory-level supervision. Our method instead combines reusable checkpoints, pivot selection, and adaptive training to reduce redundant interaction and focus learning on pivotal steps.
Figure 2: Training pipeline of our method. We construct reusable checkpoints from successful expert trajectories, select uncertain intermediate states using action disagreement, and perform a two-stage training procedure consisting of one-step local warm-up followed by adaptive hybrid training.
Environment
Checkpoint Restore
10-Step Replay
Time Reduction
MobileGym
2.97 s
15.7 s
81.1%
CUA-Gym-Hub
3.21 s
11.3 s
71.6%
Table 1: Checkpoint restoration latency compared with replaying a 10-step trajectory prefix.
Figure 3: One-step pivot training with different state-selection strategies on MobileGym and CUA-Gym-Hub. All methods use the same local RL procedure and differ only in the selected intermediate states. Solid and dashed curves denote Avg@4 and Pass@4, respectively; gray lines show the common base performance.
Method
MobileGym
CUA-Gym-Hub
Samples
Train
Held-Out
Samples
Train
Held-Out
All Pivots
38.4K
61.14 / 74.70
50.00 / 63.28
16.4K
63.75 / 68.75
47.08 / 60.00
Reward Variance
8.2K
56.02 / 72.29
45.70 / 60.16
14.3K
67.44 / 73.75
47.50 / 57.87
Action Disagreement (Ours)
8.2K
58.73 / 74.70
48.83 / 62.50
15.4K
68.81 / 75.00
52.08 / 61.67
Table 2: Comparison of pivot-selection strategies on MobileGym and CUA-Gym-Hub. Each metric cell reports Avg@4 / Pass@4 at the checkpoint with the highest Train Avg@4.
Figure 4: Full-training effectiveness and efficiency on MobileGym (top) and CUA-Gym-Hub (bottom). For each benchmark, the left two panels report Train and Held-out performance against cumulative training samples, while the right two report performance against cumulative rollout steps. Solid and dashed curves denote Avg@4 and Pass@4, respectively, and horizontal gray lines indicate base-policy performance.
Method
MobileGym
CUA-Gym-Hub
Train
Held-Out
Train
Held-Out
Base
48.80 / 62.65
40.82 / 57.03
52.81 / 61.25
47.08 / 58.33
SFT
81.93 / 90.36
48.24 / 65.63
70.00 / 73.75
50.83 / 58.33
Base → Vanilla
56.33 / 71.08
47.66 / 62.50
61.88 / 68.75
45.83 / 55.00
Base → Hybrid
56.93 / 73.49
47.85 / 64.84
65.31 / 75.00
55.83 / 65.00
Action → Vanilla
62.65 / 74.69
49.61 / 62.50
65.63 / 68.75
53.33 / 63.33
Table 3: Summary of full-training performance on MobileGym and CUA-Gym-Hub. For each method, we select the checkpoint with the highest Train Avg@4 and report its corresponding Train and Held-Out performance. Each cell reports Avg@4 / Pass@4.
Figure 5: Evolution of training allocation in adaptive hybrid training on MobileGym and CUA-Gym-Hub. The four panels show how the proportions of Local, Root, and Suffix training change over cumulative training samples for Action → Hybrid and Base → Hybrid.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Action Counts
D^(ct)
Action Counts
D^(ct)
8
0.000
5 – 3
0.536
7 – 1
0.250
4 – 4
0.571
6 – 2
0.429
5 – 2 – 1
0.607
6 – 1 – 1
0.464
4 – 3 – 1
0.679
4 – 2 – 2
0.714
3 – 3 – 2
0.750
2 – 2 – 2 – 2
0.857
1 – 1 – 1 – 1 – 1 – 1 – 1 – 1
1.000
Appendix
Table 4: Representative action-count patterns and their empirical disagreement scores for N=8 policy samples. We use τdis=0.45 .
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.
Zirui Shang, Yang Liu, Xin Shu +3
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 +1
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.
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.