analiza aiqbench
This research identifies a critical vulnerability where multimodal GUI agents prioritize serialized structural data over actual visual evidence when conflicts arise between the two channels. The study quantifies this "Perception-Fusion Gap," revealing that models often ignore correct pixel-level observations in favor of outdated or manipulated DOM structures, leading to compounded task failures. For developers and researchers building robust agent systems, these findings highlight an urgent need for architectural safeguards that enforce consistency checks rather than relying solely on prompt engineering or certificate validation.
Do GUI Agents Believe Their Eyes? Diagnosing State-Belief Reliance on Pixels versus Structure
arXiv:2607.04334v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multimodal GUI agents read an interface through two redundant channels: the rendered pixels of a screenshot and a serialized structure such as a document object model or accessibility tree. Before acting, an agent forms a belief about the current interface state, but existing benchmarks score task success, element grounding, or attack resistance and do not ask whether that belief is drawn from the pixels. We formalize visual state reliance, the attribution of a state belief to pixels, structure, or priors, and measure it with paired single-channel interventions over 735 probes spanning real web, mobile, and desktop interfaces, of which 225 are zero-edit divergences mined from live production websites, all scored by deterministic forced choice with no model judge. Our central metric is the Perception-Fusion Gap (PFG), the fraction of probes a model perceives correctly yet resolves toward structure under conflict; a stricter variant that re-verifies perception on a tight crop of the target region leaves the gap intact. Across models from four vendors, textual state beliefs defer to structure while image-only accuracy stays near ceiling, and on unedited stale snapshots from live pages the same models follow the outdated structure on up to 0.88 of probes. A white-box ablation traces the textual effect to a single copied structural value, and gradient attribution shows the visual evidence is processed yet overridden. In live multi-step environments, one mis-sourced belief at the first step compounds into task failure with a self-recovery rate of at most 0.03. Comparing four mitigations on identical probes, prompt-level cues fail at the action level, certificate checks buy safety with refusals, and a training-free consistency gate is alone in reducing both hijack and task error. Visual state reliance thus gives a measurable diagnostic of whether agent state beliefs are visually grounded.
Title:Do GUI Agents Believe Their Eyes? Diagnosing State-Belief Reliance on Pixels versus Structure
Abstract:Multimodal GUI agents read an interface through two redundant channels: the rendered pixels of a screenshot and a serialized structure such as a document object model or accessibility tree. Before acting, an agent forms a belief about the current interface state, but existing benchmarks score task success, element grounding, or attack resistance and do not ask whether that belief is drawn from the pixels. We formalize visual state reliance, the attribution of a state belief to pixels, structure, or priors, and measure it with paired single-channel interventions over 735 probes spanning real web, mobile, and desktop interfaces, of which 225 are zero-edit divergences mined from live production websites, all scored by deterministic forced choice with no model judge. Our central metric is the Perception-Fusion Gap (PFG), the fraction of probes a model perceives correctly yet resolves toward structure under conflict; a stricter variant that re-verifies perception on a tight crop of the target region leaves the gap intact. Across models from four vendors, textual state beliefs defer to structure while image-only accuracy stays near ceiling, and on unedited stale snapshots from live pages the same models follow the outdated structure on up to 0.88 of probes. A white-box ablation traces the textual effect to a single copied structural value, and gradient attribution shows the visual evidence is processed yet overridden. In live multi-step environments, one mis-sourced belief at the first step compounds into task failure with a self-recovery rate of at most 0.03. Comparing four mitigations on identical probes, prompt-level cues fail at the action level, certificate checks buy safety with refusals, and a training-free consistency gate is alone in reducing both hijack and task error. Visual state reliance thus gives a measurable diagnostic of whether agent state beliefs are visually grounded.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.04334 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.04334v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.04334 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 397 cuvinte
