Do Vision Language Models Understand Human Engagement in Games?

Vision Language Models (VLMs) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents have revolutionized how engineers approach complex problems in real-world applications. Their adoption in video games is on the other hand limited by the extreme variability of the synthetic scenarios and their poor compliance with real-world physics. Here we investigate the use of VLMs for annotating video game frame sequences with reward signals, a task with several potential applications including, among others, conditioned training and offline reinforcement learning. We show that VLMs often struggle to answer basic questions on racing video games (although we observed a similar behavior on other game genres) and discuss countermeasures such as VLM output mixing and prompt optimization. We also show how input sequence length, resolution, and question batching affect the annotation quality and its token consumption.

Automated classroom engagement recognition holds substantial promise for scalable learning analytics, yet the suitability of modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for this task under zero-shot conditions remains largely unexplored. We present a systematic benchmark that evaluates five widely-used VLMs: CLIP, BLIP-VQA, GPT-4o, LLaVA-1.5-7B, and Qwen2.5VL-7B-Instruct across two complementary educational datasets: DAiSEE, an individual-student video dataset (300 sampled test clips), and the Student Classroom Behaviour dataset (SCB, 1,168 scene-level images). Each model is probed with three prompt variants spanning minimal, rubric-anchored, and chain-of-thought designs. Our experiments reveal three primary failure modes of zero-shot VLMs for engagement recognition: (1) near-random performance on individual students, with Cohen's kappa never exceeding 0.10 on DAiSEE; (2) severe class collapse, where models assign 85-100% of predictions to a single engagement level regardless of visual content; and (3) extreme prompt sensitivity, with accuracy swings of up to 32 percentage points on identical images depending solely on prompt phrasing. Remarkably, scene-level classification on SCB is substantially more tractable: CLIP and GPT-4o achieve kappa approximately 0.60 when prompted with behaviorally-grounded rubrics. We also document a practical barrier for deployment: GPT-4o's safety filters reject 98% of chain-of-thought requests involving individual student faces. Our findings provide a calibrated baseline and surface critical design considerations for the use of VLMs in educational observation systems.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have rapidly evolved into general-purpose multimodal reasoners with strong zero-shot generalization. In this context, VLMs could greatly benefit the analysis of human gaze and attention, a central task in human behavior understanding that requires reasoning about the physical scene as well as the activity, interactions, and social context. However, the extent to which VLMs can reliably understand human gaze and related attentional behaviors remains largely unexplored. In this work, we present EyeVLM, a systematic evaluation framework for gaze understanding in VLMs across two complementary dimensions: tasks and models. To assess gaze understanding capabilities, we focus on two core tasks. The first, gaze following, i.e., predicting the 2D location where a person is looking, has a geometric and visual processing focus, requiring a precise understanding of the human face, attention direction, 3D scene structure, and spatial grounding of attended targets. The second, social gaze prediction, requires social and relational reasoning over multi-person interactions (e.g., mutual gaze and shared attention), and may benefit more from the LLM semantic reasoning capabilities within VLMs. Regarding models, EyeVLM evaluates these tasks in two ways: a zero-shot setting with a diverse set of state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs, exploring different prompting strategies; and a fine-tuning approach based on task-specific QA pairs, studying the impact of model scale and data scale. As benchmarks, we rely on existing gaze understanding datasets and perform a systematic comparison with state-of-the-art purely visual models. Overall, our results show that current VLMs lack precise gaze understanding capabilities. While standard training helps reduce the gap with visual models, significant improvements are still needed.