research·linter

Lint report · stored run

GUI-CC: Benchmarking Contextual Consistency of GUI World Models as Agent Environments

Lin Fu, Zheyuan Yang, Tianhui Zhang, Jinbiao Wei, Guo Gan, Boxu Liu, Yilun Zhao, Yu Rong open the source paper via the report id, not the extraction source: pdf IR v1.0 generated 2026-09-14 04:03:28 UTC
Lint another paper Raw report JSON
0errors
0warnings
0info
20claims read
476numbers extracted
27references
How well we read this paper 3 observations

These are notes about our reading of the paper, not about the paper. They affect how much weight the findings below can carry.

Extraction warning 1
  • numbers-are-identifier-fragments 21 of 476 extracted numbers (4%) are digits inside identifiers, not measurements. e.g. '8' in '8 | MobileWorld-html-8B w/ history | 61.', '2' in 'GPT Image 2 OpenAI | Proprietary (API) |', '3.1' in 'Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Google DeepMind |'. Rules that compare numbers across sections can report a contradiction between an identifier and a real value.
Note 2
  • compile-warning references: the reference list carries no entry numbers; citation keys are enumeration order [1]..[N], not labels printed in the paper, so a key may not match the [N] used in the body
  • compile-warning semantic extraction: dropped 1 items whose quote was not found in the paper
Some checks could not run
  • RL002 reported nothing, and it could not reach OpenAlex — so its silence here is not evidence that this paper is clean.
  • RL003 reported nothing, and it could not reach OpenAlex — so its silence here is not evidence that this paper is clean.

Everything else on this page was computed from the paper itself and is unaffected. This is a limit of this run, not a finding about the paper.

Some checks did not apply to this paper
  • RL005 did not apply to this paper — it links no repository we could read, so there was no released configuration to compare against. Its absence here says nothing about whether the paper and its code agree.
Compiler extraction log (2) 
references: the reference list carries no entry numbers; citation keys are enumeration order [1]..[N], not labels printed in the paper, so a key may not match the [N] used in the body
semantic extraction: dropped 1 items whose quote was not found in the paper

No findings on this paper.

That is a result, not a failure. The compiler read the paper without errors, and no rule found something it could prove with evidence — this product would rather say nothing than say something vague.

Read the extraction notes above before taking this as a clean bill of health: they say which checks were working with incomplete information.

Rule notes (34) 
RL001 funnel arithmetic: sentences_with_from=2 endpoint_pairs=2 claims_compared=0 emitted=0 [dropped: not-a-measurement=0]
RL001 funnel delta-column: structured_tables=3 with_exactly_one_delta_column=0 rows_checked=0 emitted=0
RL001 funnel cross-location: quant=476 prose=69 prose_with_metric=0 prose_with_dataset=0 prose_with_metric_and_dataset=0 distinct_buckets=0 emitted=0 [dropped: not-a-measurement=0 not-in-quote=0]
RL001 funnel identifier-drift: settings_checked=2 sections_stating_one_value=0 emitted=0
RL002 citation entailment: attempted 9 of 9 ranked cited claims (49 in-text markers from 27 bibliography entries); 6 cited works could not be identified, 3 had no retrievable text, 0 model quotes failed verbatim verification, 0 were topically unrelated to the retrieved text.
RL002 candidate ranking (why the top 9 were chosen): [8] [introduction, title/sentence overlap near zero, no DOI/arXiv id]; [24] [introduction, title/sentence overlap near zero, no DOI/arXiv id]; [14] [introduction, no DOI/arXiv id]; [9] [introduction, no DOI/arXiv id]; [23] [introduction, no DOI/arXiv id]; [3] [experiment, names an artefact (Eval Consistency Eval
WMA), title/sentence overlap near zero, no DOI/arXiv id]; [8] [experiment, names an artefact (CUWM), title/sentence overlap near zero, no DOI/arXiv id]; [24] [experiment, names an artefact (MobileWorld), title/sentence overlap near zero, no DOI/arXiv id]
RL002 attribution check (case B): 3 candidates name an artefact, 3 of them made the top-N and were checked against their cited source
RL002: 14 enumerated-citation sentences skipped (they cite >=3 works, so the claim is about the set and cannot be refuted by any single cited work)
RL002: 6 cited works unresolvable (first 3: [{"key": "[8]", "title": "Computer-using world model", "why": "no work record matched the bibliography title"}, {"key": "[24]", "title": "How mobile world model guides gui agents?", "why": "no work record matched the bibliography title"}, {"key": "[9]", "title": "Generative visual code mobile world models", "why": "no work record matched the bibliography title"}])
RL003: 3 queries -> 117 unique works (arXiv search 50, category listings 0, scholarly graph 67 [crossref 67], 0 graph works matched to an arXiv id); source errors during retrieval: arXiv 0, graph 0
RL003: parsed the reference list of 12/12 comparable papers (0 unreadable) — that is the PeerUsage denominator
RL003: enriched 8 of 15 candidates with their own abstract (0 unavailable, 7 over budget); 0 dropped as published after this paper
RL003: scholarly graph for this run = crossref
RL003 funnel (847 candidates): already_used_by_the_paper -3, cited_only_from_related_work -235, peer_usage_below_quorum -165, shares_no_dataset_metric_or_close_task -1, survey_or_artifact -192, title_names_no_method -237 || kept: citation_context_unknown +31 || survived-cheap-gates 15 -> with-abstract 8 -> comparable 14 -> above-threshold-0.65 0
RL003 candidate: 'UI-TARS' score 0.617 (T 0.50 D 1.00 M 0.33 P 0.50 R 1.00; 6/12 peers cite it) -> not reported
RL003 candidate: 'Mobile-agent-v3. 5' score 0.600 (T 0.50 D 1.00 M 0.33 P 0.42 R 1.00; 5/12 peers cite it) -> not reported
RL003 candidate: 'Mobile-agent-v3' score 0.583 (T 0.50 D 1.00 M 0.33 P 0.33 R 1.00; 4/12 peers cite it) -> not reported
RL003 candidate: 'GUI-R1' score 0.567 (T 0.50 D 1.00 M 0.33 P 0.25 R 1.00; 3/12 peers cite it) -> not reported
RL003 candidate: 'Os-genesis' score 0.567 (T 0.50 D 1.00 M 0.33 P 0.25 R 1.00; 3/12 peers cite it; title-only, no abstract available) -> not reported
RL003: 15 comparable candidates all scored below 0.65 — nothing to report for this paper
RL004 funnel: components=12 contribution_backed=4 candidates=0 ablations_found=1 matched_by_ablation=0 unmatched=0 experiments=5
RL004 component M1 'GUI-CC': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 component M2 'Offline Reference-Action Track': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 component M3 'Online Agent-Loop Track': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 component M4 'semantic schema': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M5 'Transition Fidelity': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 component M6 'Transition Plausibility': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 component M7 'Contextual Consistency': excluded:statistical-or-evaluation-procedure
RL004 component M8 'Task Progress': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 component M9 'Single-Step Plausibility Verification': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M10 'milestone sequence': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M11 'VLM judges': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M12 'history-conditioned input': covered (filtered earlier)
RL004 funnel: ranked=0 emitted=0 suppressed_by_cap=0 dropped_unverified_quote=0
Reading the report as data

This page is a rendering of the report the pipeline wrote. The JSON below is the stored artefact, unedited — the same document research-lint --format json produces. 

loading…