Zhenghao Ruan
Publications
PhoneWorld: Scaling Phone-Use Agent Environments
A central bottleneck for phone-use agents is that controllable, reproducible environments covering real mobile behavior are hard to build at scale. Existing mobile-agent benchmarks have made important progress on evaluation, but they do not by themselves provide a scalable way to construct many new phone-use environments. We present PhoneWorld, a reusable pipeline that converts real GUI trajectories and screenshots into controllable phone-use environments, executable tasks, automatic verifiers, and training rollouts. Rather than hand-building one mobile benchmark at a time, PhoneWorld uses real trajectories to recover which screens matter, how screens connect, which interactions must change environment state, and which user goals admit automatic verification. From these signals, it builds runnable mock Android apps backed by read-only app content and mutable state, then derives executable tasks, rule-based verifiers, and training rollouts from the same environments. In its current instantiation, PhoneWorld covers 34 apps across 16 domains, spanning common consumer mobile behaviors such as search, browsing, shopping, booking, media, and social interaction. Under a fixed training budget, replacing 10K steps from an auxiliary AndroidWorld corpus in an AndroidWorld-based baseline with broad PhoneWorld supervision improves all four evaluation benchmarks at once, raising HYMobileBench by 17.7 points, AndroidControl by 6.0 points, AndroidWorld by 14.7 points, and PhoneWorld by 52.5 points. We then study two additional scaling questions: increasing the amount of PhoneWorld supervision strongly improves PhoneWorld performance, and under a fixed PhoneWorld budget, expanding app coverage yields even larger gains. Overall, PhoneWorld shifts the focus from building one mobile benchmark at a time to scaling the supply of phone-use environments themselves.
Safe, or Simply Incapable? Rethinking Safety Evaluation for Phone-Use Agents
When a phone-use agent avoids harm, does that show safety, or simply inability to act? Existing evaluations often cannot tell. A harmful outcome may be avoided because the agent recognized the risk and chose the safe action, or because it failed to understand the screen or execute any relevant action at all. These cases have different causes and call for different fixes, yet current benchmarks often merge them under task success, refusal, or final harmful outcome. We address this problem with PhoneSafety, a benchmark of 700 safety-critical moments drawn from real phone interactions across more than 130 apps. Each instance isolates the next decision at a risky moment and asks a simple question: does the model take the safe action, take the unsafe action, or fail to do anything useful? We evaluate eight representative phone-use agents under this framework. Our results reveal two main patterns. First, stronger general phone-use ability does not reliably imply safer choices at risky moments. Models that perform better on ordinary app tasks are not always the ones that behave more safely when the next action matters. Second, failures to do anything useful behave like a capability signal rather than a safety signal: they are concentrated in more visually and operationally demanding settings and remain stable when the evaluation protocol changes. Across models, failures split into two recurring patterns: unsafe choices in settings where the model can act but chooses wrongly, and inability to act in more visually and operationally demanding screens. Overall, a harmless outcome is not enough to count as evidence of safety. Evaluating phone-use agents requires separating unsafe judgment from inability to act.