Evaluates multimodal large language models and agents on Chinese mobile GUI interaction tasks. It probes atomic capabilities like visual perception, grounding, and planning, as well as end-to-end execution reliability in both offline simulation and real-device online environments. Use when the user wants to benchmark on GUI-CEval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Online Agent success rate.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Gui Ceval Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-gui-ceval-eval)
---
name: gui-ceval-eval
description: Evaluates multimodal large language models and agents on Chinese mobile GUI interaction tasks. It probes atomic capabilities like visual perception, grounding, and planning, as well as end-to-end execution reliability in both offline simulation and real-device online environments. Use when the user wants to benchmark on GUI-CEval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Online Agent success rate.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2603.15039
bibtex_key: li2026guiceval
confidence: high
---
# gui-ceval-eval
> GUI-CEval: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Chinese Benchmark for Mobile GUI Agents — Li et al. (2026) (arXiv:2603.15039, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates multimodal large language models and agents on Chinese mobile GUI interaction tasks. It probes atomic capabilities like visual perception, grounding, and planning, as well as end-to-end execution reliability in both offline simulation and real-device online environments.
## Datasets
- **GUI-CEval** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Online Agent success rate` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of tasks completed successfully on real mobile devices. Measures end-to-end capability under real-world constraints.
- `Step Success Rate (SSR)` — range: percent
- Percentage of individual steps executed correctly in offline execution traces. Computed as correct steps divided by total ground-truth steps.
- `Grounding accuracy` — range: percent
- Percentage of correctly localized click targets. Measured only on samples where both annotation and prediction are clicks to avoid perception bias from mixed action types.
- `Overall average score` — range: percent
- Aggregated percentage across five hierarchical capability dimensions: perception, planning, reflection, execution, and evaluation.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Chinese language task instructions paired with mobile GUI screenshots (images). Screenshots may be provided at original resolution or scaled down to 1/2, 1/4, or 1/6 of original width/height.
**Output**: Model-generated action sequences (e.g., click coordinates, text input, scroll) and/or reasoning chains. Predictions are parsed to determine if the predicted action matches the ground-truth annotation for each step.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, ground_truth, online_tasks):
# Grounding Accuracy (clicks only)
click_pairs = [(p, g) for p, g in zip(predictions, ground_truth) if g.action == 'click']
grounding_acc = sum(1 for p, g in click_pairs if p.action == 'click' and match_coords(p, g)) / len(click_pairs) * 100
# Step Success Rate (SSR)
ssr = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, ground_truth) if actions_match(p, g)) / len(ground_truth) * 100
# Online Agent Success Rate
online_success = sum(1 for task in online_tasks if task.completed_on_device) / len(online_tasks) * 100
return {'grounding_accuracy': grounding_acc, 'ssr': ssr, 'online_success_rate': online_success}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Grounding accuracy is strictly limited to click actions to avoid perception bias from mixed action types; evaluating it on all actions inflates or deflates the metric unfairly.
- Online success rate exhibits a cliff-like decline beyond 6 steps, making short-horizon or offline metrics poor proxies for real-world deployment capability.
- Initial page state heavily influences results; evaluating only from the home screen overestimates robustness for uncontrolled user paths and diverse app entry points.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> When examined by capability dimension, perception-related scores such as Perception and Grounding remain high (peaking at 82.28% and 90.10%, respectively), while reasoning and correction-related metrics (Reflection and Evaluation) lag far behind (maximums of 21.01% and 49.24%). For Online Agent—the most challenging task involving real interactions—the best success rate is 33.33% (UI-TARS-72B-SFT), with over half of the models below 20%.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{li2026guiceval,
title={GUI-CEval: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Chinese Benchmark for Mobile GUI Agents},
author={Li et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2603.15039}
}
```
- arXiv: 2603.15039