# Uncertainty Quantification for Computer-Use Agents: A Benchmark across Vision-Language Models and GUI Grounding Datasets

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25760 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25760/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Hallucination mitigation in LVLMs, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 51 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Hallucination mitigation in LVLMs](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/hallucination-mitigation-in-lvlms/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [GUI and mobile agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/gui-and-mobile-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 51)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.03888/) (2018)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.07511/) (2021)
- [Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1604.04173/) (2016)
- [The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13734/) (2023)
- [Conformalized Quantile Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.03222/) (2019)
- [UI-TARS: Pioneering Automated GUI Interaction with Native Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12326/) (2025)
- [SeeClick: Harnessing GUI Grounding for Advanced Visual GUI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10935/) (2024)
- [Predictive Uncertainty Estimation via Prior Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.10501/) (2018)
- [Navigating the Digital World as Humans Do: Universal Visual Grounding for GUI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05243/) (2024)
- [OS-ATLAS: A Foundation Action Model for Generalist GUI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.23218/) (2024)
- [SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Option](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09192/) (2019)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [Conformal Risk Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.02814/) (2022)
- [Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01052/) (2021)
- [Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15927/) (2024)
- [ScreenSpot-Pro: GUI Grounding for Professional High-Resolution Computer Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07981/) (2025)
- [Out-of-Distribution Detection and Selective Generation for Conditional Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.15558/) (2022)
- [OpenCUA: Open Foundations for Computer-Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.09123/) (2025)
- [Scaling Computer-Use Grounding via User Interface Decomposition and Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13227/) (2025)
- [Uncertainty Estimates and Multi-Hypotheses Networks for Optical Flow](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07095/) (2018)
- [LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07383/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15627/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [CURA: Certified Runtime Alarms for Computer-Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27808/) (2026)
- [Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07395/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Computer-use agents turn vision-language model (VLM) predictions into executable GUI clicks, so reliable uncertainty estimates are essential for rejection, calibration, miss-severity ranking, and spatial safety regions. Yet evidence on post-hoc uncertainty quantification (UQ) for these agents is fragmented across isolated model and dataset pairs, leaving it unclear whether UQ rankings stay stable when the agent, benchmark, or observable interface changes. We present Argus, a cross-regime benchmark for post-hoc UQ in single-step executable GUI grounding: a 27-method open-weight matrix over 4 VLM agents and 4 datasets, plus an 8-method closed-source matrix across 3 frontier vendors where logits, hidden states, and attention maps are unavailable. Evaluated methods span logit-based scores, sampling and consistency measures, hidden-state and density estimators (Mahalanobis, SAPLMA), attention-based scores, P(True) and verbalised-confidence prompting, and split-conformal prediction. The main finding is selective transfer: UQ rankings are stable across datasets for a fixed model, but degrade across model classes and observable interfaces. Hidden-state and density methods are the most stable open-weight family, while CoCoA-1MCA, Focus, sampling-based scores, and verbalised self-assessment win in specific regimes. Within-model ranking transfer is strong (Spearman rho up to 0.969), but cross-tier transfer to closed-source vendors averages only +0.08, so closed-source UQ should be reranked on the target rather than extrapolated. Conformal click regions show score-level discrimination is not enough for deployment: locally weighted disks shrink radii by 40-60% when the plug-in UQ is calibrated, but coverage degrades under calibration-test or interface mismatch. We release per-item records, calibration/test splits, UQ scores, and analysis scripts for regime-aware UQ selection in GUI agents.