arXiv:2608.21832cs.CL2026-08中稿 · EMNLP

新基准测试揭示视觉语言模型在界面空间关系理解上的真实失败原因

GUI-Primitives: Diagnosing Spatial Reasoning Failures in Vision-Language GUI Grounding

论文配图:GUI-Primitives: Diagnosing Spatial Reasoning Failures in Vision-Language GUI Grounding
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 设计994个对比指令对,分离空间关系与目标定位错误
  • 模型最高仅32%准确率,60%-92%预测落在候选区外
  • 失败主因是定位不准而非关系理解,适合评估界面导航模型

计算机使用代理将自然语言指令映射到截图以定位界面元素,但现有基准无法区分模型是否正确关联关系性语言与目标元素。我们提出GUI-Primitives,一个包含994项的基准,覆盖图形用户界面中的七种空间关系(左右、上下、包含、对齐、邻近、列表序号、遮挡),每对指令保持截图和锚点固定,仅改变关系表达,使正确目标在两个指定候选间移动。五名标注者验证196项子集,一致性κ=0.94(完整性),κ=0.79(目标选择)。19个视觉语言模型最高仅达32%严格点-框准确率。由于模型输出无约束坐标,我们按预测落入的候选区域分类。60%-92%的预测落在两个候选区之外。若预测落在候选区内,水平/垂直位置、邻近、列表序号的准确率达0.82-0.90,但包含与遮挡未显著优于0.50:多数失败源于候选定位而非关系理解。十模型在本基准的表现与ScreenSpot-Pro相关(斯皮尔曼ρ=+0.74),样本量下为探索性关联。标记两个候选可提升选择准确率35–57个百分点,仅为诊断工具,非部署方法。我们发布该基准、预测结果与代码。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Computer-use agents ground natural-language instructions in screenshots to locate interface elements, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether models bind relational language to the correct element. We introduce GUI-Primitives, a 994-item benchmark of contrastive instruction pairs over seven spatial relations in graphical user interfaces (left/right, above/below, containment, alignment, proximity, list ordinal, occlusion). Each pair holds the screenshot and anchor fixed while changing the relation expression, so the correct target moves between two designated candidates. Five annotators validate a 196-item subset ($κ= 0.94$ well-formedness; $κ= 0.79$ target selection). Nineteen vision-language models reach at most $32\%$ strict point-in-box accuracy. Because models emit unconstrained coordinates, we classify each prediction by the candidate region it falls within. Predictions fall outside both candidates on $60-92\%$ of items. Conditional on falling within a candidate region, target selection reaches 0.82-0.90 for horizontal position, vertical position, proximity, and list ordinal, but does not differ significantly from 0.50 for containment and occlusion: most failures reflect candidate localization rather than relation understanding. Across ten models, benchmark accuracy correlates with ScreenSpot-Pro accuracy (Spearman $ρ= +0.74$), an exploratory association at this sample size. Marking the two designated candidates raises selection accuracy by 35--57 percentage points, an oracle diagnostic that supplies the candidate set rather than a deployable method. We release the benchmark, predictions, and code.

视觉语言界面理解空间推理基准测试

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。