What it measures
116 dynamic mobile GUI control tasks across 20 real Android apps with randomized task parameters.
Reading the measurement
The useful outcome is a verified change or deliverable. Inspect the tool interface, initial state, user simulator and policy constraints. An agent can claim completion without reaching the required state, or reach it through an action the protocol forbids.
Published evaluation
AndroidWorld task success from Table 3; agent, model and input modality are retained. The adjacent MobileMiniWoB++ column is a different environment.
Where this fits in an evaluation suite
A transcript that says “done” is weaker evidence than the verified final state. Track policy violations, recoveries, and invalid attempts alongside success.
Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.
A reproducible comparison
AndroidWorld task success from Table 3; agent, model and input modality are retained. The adjacent MobileMiniWoB++ column is a different environment.
Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.
PRIMARY EVIDENCE & FURTHER READING
- AndroidWorld: A Dynamic Benchmarking Environment for Autonomous Agents — published result table ↗
All 15 authors
Christopher Rawles, Sarah Clinckemaillie, Yifan Chang, Jonathan Waltz, Gabrielle Lau, Marybeth Fair, Alice Li, William Bishop, Wei Li, Folawiyo Campbell-Ajala, Daniel Toyama, Robert Berry, Divya Tyamagundlu, Timothy Lillicrap, Oriana Riva
Reviewed 2026-10-26. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.