METAL LAB

UI-Venus-2 Technical Report

arXiv:2609.000282026-09-02

UI-Venus-2 is a single GUI agent that operates across mobile, web, and desktop, scaling environments, tasks, and verification together

UI-Venus-2 is a GUI agent that looks at a screen and performs clicks, typing, and scrolling to automate tasks, now extended to cover 170+ mobile apps and native desktop operating systems alongside web. It generates instructions through a deep-research pipeline and uses trace-level and sample-level verifiers with multi-model voting to produce more reliable reinforcement-learning reward signals. The team evaluated the 27B and 9B versions of UI-Venus-2 against selected strong baselines across multiple GUI benchmarks.

METAL LAB explanatory visual

UI-Venus-2's Three-Stage Training Pipeline

Evidence statusMeasured results and planned work

  1. Mid-trainingInjects GUI interaction knowledge using large-scale trajectories collected across mobile, web, and OS environments.
  2. Domain-specific offline RLOptimizes Grounding, CAPTCHA, Mobile, Web, and Computer domains separately with step-level reinforcement learning.
  3. Multi-teacher on-policy distillation (MOPD)Consolidates domain-specialized models into one UI-Venus-2 model, concentrating supervision on executable action tokens.
  4. Trace- and sample-level verificationUses visual keypoints and multi-model voting to check trajectories and individual actions, supplying reliable reward signals for RL.
An explanatory diagram made by METAL LAB, not a figure supplied by the paper's authors.

What they did

  1. The agent works through one unified closed-loop reasoning-action framework across mobile, web, and desktop environments: observe the screen, reason about task state, act, then adapt to feedback.
  2. Three dimensions were scaled jointly: environments (170+ multilingual mobile apps plus desktop OS), tasks (deep-research-based instruction generation), and verification (trace-level and sample-level evaluators).
  3. Training follows three stages: large-scale trajectory-based mid-training, domain-specific offline reinforcement learning, and multi-teacher on-policy distillation (MOPD) to merge domain experts into one model.
  4. In MOPD, reasoning text and executable actions are treated differently, concentrating the distillation signal on the action tokens that actually change the environment state.
  5. The system also integrates CAPTCHA-solving capability for login/registration gates and safety-aware mechanisms to control potentially consequential actions.
Figure 1: Performances of UI-Venus-2 on GUI-agent benchmarks. Each panel compares UI-Venus-2-27B and UI-Venus-2-9B with some selected strong baselines. We favor standalone end-to-end systems evaluated on the closest available task subset and step budget; source-reported action scaffolds may still differ. MobileWorld uses GUI-only success rate on 117 tasks with 50 steps, WebVoyager uses the refreshed 595-task split, Odysseys uses average rubric score over 200 tasks, VenusBench-CAPTCHA uses micro Pass@1 over all 219 examples, and VenusBench-GD uses English-instruction micro-average accuracy. “*” denotes the results are reproduced by us.
Figure 1: Performances of UI-Venus-2 on GUI-agent benchmarks. Each panel compares UI-Venus-2-27B and UI-Venus-2-9B with some selected strong baselines. We favor standalone end-to-end systems evaluated on the closest available task subset and step budget; source-reported action scaffolds may still differ. MobileWorld uses GUI-only success rate on 117 tasks with 50 steps, WebVoyager uses the refreshed 595-task split, Odysseys uses average rubric score over 200 tasks, VenusBench-CAPTCHA uses micro Pass@1 over all 219 examples, and VenusBench-GD uses English-instruction micro-average accuracy. “*” denotes the results are reproduced by us.
Table 1: Performance comparison on various mobile GUI benchmarks. VenusBench-Mobile reports success rate on its 149-task primary pool. For MobileWorld, we report GUI-only success rate on 117 tasks under the 50-step setting; values in parentheses, when available, use 100 steps. MemGUI reports Main Results pass@1. “*” denotes the baseline results evaluated or reproduced by us.
ModelsMobileGymVenusBench-MobileAndroidWorldMobileWorldKnowUBenchMemGUI
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B (Qwen Team, 2026a)9.0*15.3*57.818.0(18.0)*33.36.2*
Qwen3.6-27B (Qwen Team, 2026b)24.6*28.0*70.336.8(41.9)*-25.7*
Claude-Opus-4.6 (Anthropic, 2026a)-36.5*-44.5--
Kimi-K2.6 (Moonshot AI, 2026a)38.7*31.2*-55.6-39.1
Kimi-K3 (Moonshot AI, 2026b)---74.4--
Seed-2.0-Pro (Seed, 2026)52.020.1*-63.251.665.6*
Seed-2.1-Pro (ByteDance Seed, 2026)---73.2--
GPT-5.6-Sol (OpenAI, 2026)---70.1--
GUI-specific Models
UI-Venus-1.5-8B (Team et al., 2026c)18.4*16.173.722.2*26.03.9*
UI-Venus-1.5-30B-A3B (Team et al., 2026c)21.5*21.577.617.1-10.9*
GUI-Owl-1.5-32B-Instruct (Xu et al., 2026)20.3*-69.843.9-10.9
MAI-UI-8B (Zhou et al., 2025b)21.5*12.770.727.526.017.2*
Qwen-UI-Agent-27B (Zhou et al., 2026)---82.1(85.5)--
Ours
UI-Venus-2-9B52.746.580.265.8(75.2)56.562.6
UI-Venus-2-27B60.548.784.076.1(82.9)59.770.3
Figure 2: System Overview of UI-Venus-2. The figure illustrates the task generation and trajectory collection process of UI-Venus-2. Diverse tasks are constructed to form a multi-domain task pool, and interaction trajectories are collected across mobile, browser, and computer environments, covering a broad range of real-world applications, websites, and desktop software.
Figure 2: System Overview of UI-Venus-2. The figure illustrates the task generation and trajectory collection process of UI-Venus-2. Diverse tasks are constructed to form a multi-domain task pool, and interaction trajectories are collected across mobile, browser, and computer environments, covering a broad range of real-world applications, websites, and desktop software.
Table 2: Performance comparison on computer-use agent benchmarks: OSWorld-Verified and DeskCraft (left), and OSWorld 2.0 (right) under the official 150-step budget with 108 tasks. Reported OSWorld-Verified baselines use the 361-task setting in their cited source and may use model-specific action scaffolds. For DeskCraft, we report an author-evaluated aggregate over the 538-task union of the Standard and Interactive splits, which differs from the benchmark’s official split-level reporting. OSWorld 2.0 results report the official Binary Accuracy and Partial Score metrics; baselines are taken from the official leaderboard, possibly with model-specific tool settings, and the reasoning-effort setting is labeled in parentheses for models with multiple official entries. “*” indicates baseline results evaluated by us.
ModelsOSWorld-VerifiedDeskCraft
General VLMs
Claude-Opus-4.8 (Zhou et al., 2026)83.4-
Qwen3.5-9B (Qwen Team, 2026a)41.814.6∗
Qwen3.6-27B (Qwen Team, 2026b)62.028.7∗
Kimi-K2.6 (Moonshot AI, 2026a)73.141.4∗
Seed-2.0-Pro (Seed, 2026)62.340.0∗
Seed-2.1-Pro (Zhou et al., 2026)78.8-
GPT-5.5 (Zhou et al., 2026)78.7-
GUI-specific Models
GUI-Owl-1.5-32B-Instruct (Xu et al., 2026)56.5-
Qwen-UI-Agent-27B (Zhou et al., 2026)79.5-
Ours
UI-Venus-2-9B70.848.0
UI-Venus-2-27B80.555.5
Figure 3: The Three-Stage Pipeline of UI-Venus-2. Following the overall training recipe of UI-Venus-1.5, UI-Venus-2 starts with large-scale trajectory-based mid-training to inject GUI interaction knowledge. The resulting model is then optimized independently for each domain using step-level Offline-RL, covering Grounding, CAPTCHA, Mobile, Web, and Computer tasks. Finally, the domain-specialized models are consolidated into the final UI-Venus-2 model via multi-teacher on-policy distillation.
Figure 3: The Three-Stage Pipeline of UI-Venus-2. Following the overall training recipe of UI-Venus-1.5, UI-Venus-2 starts with large-scale trajectory-based mid-training to inject GUI interaction knowledge. The resulting model is then optimized independently for each domain using step-level Offline-RL, covering Grounding, CAPTCHA, Mobile, Web, and Computer tasks. Finally, the domain-specialized models are consolidated into the final UI-Venus-2 model via multi-teacher on-policy distillation.
Table 3: Performance comparison on four live-web benchmarks: WebVoyager, Online-Mind2Web, REAL, and Odysseys. The Fara1.5 and GPT-5 (SoM) WebVoyager entries use the refreshed 595-task, 100-step robust protocol and are averaged over three runs; live-site states may vary by evaluation date. For Odysseys, we report both the averaged rubric score (Avg.) and the perfect rubric score (Perfect). "*" indicates our reproduced results.
ModelsWebVoyagerOnline-Mind2WebREALOdysseys
Avg.Perfect
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B (Qwen Team, 2026a)46.9∗27.3∗18.2∗42.6∗13.5∗
Qwen3.5-4B (Qwen Team, 2026a)42.910.7
Qwen3.6-27B (Qwen Team, 2026b)84.3∗55.3∗27.3∗39.5∗18.5∗
OpenAI Operator (OpenAI, 2025)87.061.3
GPT-5 (SoM) (Awadallah et al., 2026)90.6
GPT-5.4 (Singh et al., 2025)55.433.5
Seed-2.0-Pro (Seed, 2026)85.1∗68.5∗74.4∗60.2∗30.1∗
GLM-5V-Turbo (Hong et al., 2026)88.5
Claude-Opus-4.6 (Anthropic, 2026a)88.068.944.5
Claude-Sonnet-4.6 (Anthropic, 2026b)49.831.0
Kimi-K2.6 (Moonshot AI, 2026a)76.8∗74.4∗
GUI-specific Models
UI-TARS-1.5 (Seed, 2025b)84.875.8
UI-Venus-1.5-30B-A3B (Team et al., 2026c)76.038.0∗
GUI-Owl-1.5-32B-Thinking (Xu et al., 2026)82.144.6∗
MolmoWeb-8B (Gupta et al., 2026)78.235.3
Fara1.5-4B (Awadallah et al., 2026)80.8
Fara1.5-9B (Awadallah et al., 2026)86.663.4
Fara1.5-27B (Awadallah et al., 2026)89.372.3
Ours
UI-Venus-2-9B90.874.076.977.362.0
UI-Venus-2-27B93.478.380.280.466.3
Figure 4: Examples of synthesized GUI Grounding training data. Our pipeline generates diverse and realistic interface screenshots spanning desktop (macOS, Windows), mobile (iOS), and web platforms, covering both professional software and consumer applications. All interfaces are rendered in a real headless Chromium browser via Playwright, ensuring high-fidelity visual output that closely mirrors authentic user environments.
Figure 4: Examples of synthesized GUI Grounding training data. Our pipeline generates diverse and realistic interface screenshots spanning desktop (macOS, Windows), mobile (iOS), and web platforms, covering both professional software and consumer applications. All interfaces are rendered in a real headless Chromium browser via Playwright, ensuring high-fidelity visual output that closely mirrors authentic user environments.
Table 4: Performance comparison on various Grounding Benchmarks. VenusBench-GD reports English-instruction micro-average point-in-box accuracy. “*” indicates baselines evaluated or reproduced by us.
ModelsGrounding Benchmarks
VenusBench-GDScreenSpot-ProOSworld-G-RUI-Vision
General VLMs
Qwen 3.7 Plus (Qwen Team, 2026c)75.2*68.978.268.0
Seed 2.1 Pro (ByteDance Seed, 2026)73.9*65.378.062.0
Kimi-K2.6 (Moonshot AI, 2026a)73.1*52.0*69.7*51.7*
Qwen3.6-27B (Qwen Team, 2026b)67.7*65.2*76.9*58.3*
GUI-specific Models
UI-Venus-Ground-72B (Gu et al., 2025)70.261.969.536.8
Holo2-30B-A3B (H-Company, 2025)59.5*66.176.140.9*
Step-GUI-4B (Yan et al., 2025)54.6*60.066.930.0*
MAI-UI-8B (Zhou et al., 2025b)65.2*65.868.640.7
MAI-UI-32B (Zhou et al., 2025b)-67.973.947.1
UI-Venus-1.5-30B-A3B (Team et al., 2026c)75.069.676.454.7
Qwen-UI-Agent-27B (Zhou et al., 2026)-76.678.570.0
Ours
UI-Venus-2-9B77.173.078.553.2
UI-Venus-2-27B80.174.179.166.9
Figure 5: Overview of VenusBench-CAPTCHA. Each panel shows one complete, uncropped representative screenshot. The OCR label gives the target transcription, numbered boxes indicate the required click order, and arrows visualize annotated drag trajectories. These annotations are added for presentation only and are not part of the model input.
Figure 5: Overview of VenusBench-CAPTCHA. Each panel shows one complete, uncropped representative screenshot. The OCR label gives the target transcription, numbered boxes indicate the required click order, and arrows visualize annotated drag trajectories. These annotations are added for presentation only and are not part of the model input.
Table 5: Performance Comparison across CAPTCHA Benchmarks. All results are Pass@1 percentages, and higher is better. We evaluate on VenusBench-CAPTCHA and four public benchmarks: MCA-Bench Wu et al. (2026b), Spatial-CAPTCHA-Bench Kharlamova et al. (2026), NextGen-CAPTCHAs Liu et al. (2026b), and Open CaptchaWorld Luo et al. (2025b). We use 1,000 sampled MCA-Bench examples, 15 NextGen-CAPTCHAs task types, and 16 Open CaptchaWorld task types; see the appendix for selection details.
ModelsVenusBench- CAPTCHAMCA-BenchSpatial- CAPTCHA-BenchNextGen- CAPTCHAsOpen CaptchaWorld
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B (Qwen Team, 2026a)28.330.44.92.836.4
Qwen3.6-27B (Qwen Team, 2026b)53.051.731.014.147.7
Seed-2.0-Pro (Seed, 2026)47.936.543.820.455.6
Kimi-K2.6 (Moonshot AI, 2026a)39.738.724.87.247.8
Claude-Opus-4.6 (Anthropic, 2026a)16.025.99.52.823.3
Ours
UI-Venus-2-9B78.175.742.847.650.7
UI-Venus-2-27B79.979.648.654.556.3
Table 6: Safety evaluation on OSHARM and OS-BLIND benchmarks. ASR denotes Attack Success Rate (%, lower is better).
ModelOSHarm (ASR ↓)OSBlind (ASR ↓)
General VLMs
Qwen3.5-9B (Qwen Team, 2026a)25.379.4
Qwen3.5-27B (Qwen Team, 2026a)18.089.3
Kimi K2.6 (Moonshot AI, 2026a)32.093.6
GUI-specific Models
EvoCUA-8B (Xue et al., 2026)39.385.3
EvoCUA-32B (Xue et al., 2026)33.390.7
UI-TARS-1.5 (Seed, 2025b)36.083.3
ScaleCUA (Lv et al., 2026)25.384.7
Ours
UI-Venus-2-9B11.348.8
UI-Venus-2-27B15.347.9
Table 7: All actions and their definitions used in UI-Venus-2. We unify the action space and map all the actions in the existing open-source dataset to this space.
ActionDefinition
Shared Actions (All Platforms)
Click(point=(x, y))Click at coordinates (x, y).
Drag(start=(x1, y1), end=(x2, y2))Drag from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2).
Swipe(start=(x1, y1), end=(x2, y2))Scroll by swiping from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2).
DoubleClick(point=(x, y))Perform a double-click/tap at coordinates (x, y).
LongPress(point=(x, y))Long press at coordinates (x, y) to trigger extra options.
Type(content=”)Type the specified content.
Wait()Wait for loading.
CallUser(content=”)Request user takeover or additional information.
Finished(content=”)Mark the task as completed, with optional information.
Mobile†† Coordinates are normalized to [0,999].
PressBack()Press the ‘back’ button.
PressHome()Press the ‘home’ button.
PressEnter()Press the ‘enter’ button.
PressRecent()Press the ‘recent’ button.
LaunchApp(app=”)Launch the specified app.
GetScreenshot()Take a screenshot and save it to the photo album.
Answer(content=”)Answer the user’s questions as requested.
Desktop†† Coordinates are normalized to [0,999].
RightClick(box=(x, y))Right-click at (x, y) to open context menus.
Hotkey(keys=[‘ctrl’, ‘c’])Press a keyboard shortcut, e.g., Ctrl+C for copy.
Web †† Coordinates are normalized to [0,999].
Scroll(point=(x, y), direction=‘up/down/left/right’)Scroll at (x, y) in the specified direction.
Launch(url=”)Launch the target URL.
GetUrl()Get the URL of the current browser tab.
TakeNote(content=”)Record important information from the screenshot.
Hover(point=(x, y))Move the mouse cursor to coordinates (x, y) without clicking.
Hotkey(keys=(‘ctrl’, ‘c’))Press combination keys (up to 3).
SelectOption(index=3)Choose an option from a native HTML select element.
PressBack()Return to the previous page.

Findings

  • Figure 1 and Tables 1-5 report evaluations of UI-Venus-2-27B and 9B against selected strong baselines on benchmarks including MobileWorld, WebVoyager, Odysseys, VenusBench-CAPTCHA, and VenusBench-GD.
  • VenusBench-CAPTCHA was evaluated on 219 examples across eight interaction types (OCR text entry, ordered click, rotation, drag, slider puzzle, etc.) using Pass@1.
  • Table 6 reports safety evaluation on the OSHARM and OS-BLIND benchmarks using Attack Success Rate (ASR), where lower is better.
  • The paper reports that the action-type-conditioned distillation design in the MOPD stage yields more robust fusion results across diverse GUI domains.

Where it can be used

  • Experimenting with automating repetitive mobile/web tasks such as logins and form-filling via screen-based interaction rather than APIs
  • Building automation pipelines that need to handle CAPTCHA gates as part of the workflow
  • Reference for designing general-purpose agents that also cover desktop OS tasks like file management or office software
  • Reference for designing verification mechanisms (trace-level and sample-level, multi-model voting) for reinforcement learning reward signals

Limits and open work

  • The paper itself notes that baseline comparisons may use different action scaffolds or evaluation protocols reported by their original sources, so comparisons are not fully apples-to-apples.
  • Some benchmarks, such as OSWorld-Verified, are evaluated on a different task count (108 tasks) than the original benchmark's official setting (361 tasks), limiting direct comparability.
  • Safety mechanisms were only verified on the OSHARM and OS-BLIND benchmarks; broader real-world risk scenarios are not addressed.
  • Multilingual mobile coverage is limited to about 100+ Chinese and 70+ English apps, so performance on other languages/regions is unverified.
  • The paper explicitly notes that live-web benchmark results may vary depending on the evaluation date because website states change.

Why it matters

GUI agents that perform well only on narrow benchmarks but break down on real apps, websites, and desktops are a major obstacle to practical automation. This work is notable for jointly scaling environment coverage, task generation, and verification reliability as a way to close that gap.

Terms in this paper

  • GUI agent · An AI that operates software by performing human-like actions such as clicking and typing based on what it sees on screen
  • Offline reinforcement learning · Reinforcement learning that trains on already-collected interaction data rather than live exploration
  • Multi-teacher on-policy distillation (MOPD) · A training method where multiple teacher models score actions sampled by the student model itself to train the student
  • Trajectory · The full sequence of screens and actions recorded while an agent performs one task
  • VLM as a Judge · Using a vision-language model to evaluate and score the outputs of another model

Original abstract (English)

Multimodal GUI agents have emerged as a promising paradigm for digital task automation, yet transitioning from benchmark-oriented models to dependable real-world applications remains challenging due to limited environment coverage, brittle task construction, and unreliable reward verification. In this work, we present UI-Venus-2, a general-purpose foundation GUI agent designed to operate across mobile, web, and desktop environments through a unified closed-loop reasoning-action framework. To bridge the gap toward practical deployment, we jointly scale three critical dimensions: (1) Environments, expanding coverage to more than 170 multilingual mobile apps and native desktop operating systems; (2) Tasks, employing a deep-research pipeline for function-grounded instruction generation; and (3) Verification, adopting trace-level and sample-level evaluators with visual keypoints and multi-model voting to ensure reliable RL signals for training. Furthermore, we integrate safety-aware mechanisms to ensure controlled execution of consequential actions. By offering a capable, efficient, and open-source foundation, UI-Venus-2 advances the field toward more generalizable, verifiable, and self-reflective agents for real-world applications.

Authors · Venus Team, Zhuohan Cai, Haoxing Chen, Jiaxuan Chen, Weizhi Chen, Changlong Gao, Zhangxuan Gu, Yuan Guo, Yusong Hu, Jian

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL LAB

Figures: Venus Team et al., arXiv:2609.00028, arxiv-nonexclusive