Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong zero-shot reasoning across diverse domains, but their potential for Human-Object Interaction (HOI) remains unexplored. Unlike traditional HOI approaches that rely on extensive labeled datasets and fixed interaction taxonomies, MLLMs offer flexible reasoning, making them well-suited for dynamic, real-world scenarios. In this work, we present the first systematic study of MLLMs for HOI recognition and detection within a pipeline that combines an external object detector for entity localization with zero-shot multimodal reasoning for interaction understanding. We introduce a benchmark framework for principled zero-shot evaluation, consisting of (i) a unified taxonomy of zero-shot prompting strategies, and (ii) a methodology that transforms token-level logits into interaction scores, enabling fair comparison with specialized HOI models under standard metrics. To support prompt-based evaluation, we additionally construct new question-answer annotations for standard HOI datasets, transforming them into a format suitable for MLLMs. Building on this, we propose two visual prompting strategies, namely Objects as Context and Black Other Objects, that guide MLLMs to target objects while preserving scene context. Experiments on HICO, HICO-DET, and V-COCO demonstrate state-of-the-art zero-shot performance, achieving 53.50 mAP on HICO and 23.69 mAP on HICO-DET. Overall, our work provides a principled benchmarking framework for MLLMs in HOI, opening the door to new models and datasets and enabling flexible open-world interaction understanding.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Visual example of Objects as Context: cropped relevant objects are input alongside text prompts to enrich visual tokens. (b) Visual example of Black Other Objects: all non-target objects are masked to remove distractions.
Figure 2: Taxonomy of zero-shot methods leveraging MLLMs divided into textual, visual, and hybrid strategies.
Taxonomy
Prompting methods
Ensemble
Resampling, Self-consistency ( Wang et al. [2022] ), Tree-of-thoughts ( Yao et al. [2023] ), Graph-of-thoughts ( Besta et al. [2024] )
Generated Knowledge
Multimodal Chain-of-thought ( Zhang et al. [2023b] ), Generated knowledge ( Liu et al. [2021] )
Task Decomposition
Prompt chaining, Least-to-most prompting ( Zhou et al. [2022] )
Templates
Role-prompting, Multimodal Chain-of-thought ( Zhang et al. [2023b] ), Meta prompting ( Zhang et al. [2023a] ), Prompt Pattern Catalog ( White et al. [2023] )
External Knowledge
FLARE ( Jiang et al. [2023] ), In-Context RALM ( Ram et al. [2023] )
Saliency
RedCircle ( Shtedritski et al. [2023] ), FGVP ( Yang et al. [2023c] )
Table 1: Position in zero-shot taxonomy of relevant methods.
Figure 3: Zero-shot HOI recognition method using MLLMs. The output y^ij represents the classification score for object class i and interaction j , P(cij) denotes the classification probability computed according to Equation ( 1 ), and τ is the detection threshold for querying the MLLM. The image is taken from the HICO test set.
Figure 4: Objects as Context architecture. Step 1: Detect all objects. Step 2a: Filter relevant objects ( e.g. “backpacks”) based on the question. Step 2b: Filter all persons. Step 3: Input the information into the LLM, specifying visual tokens related to relevant objects/persons and the original image.
Category (from Taxonomy)
Strategy
HOI Recognition
HOI Detection
Hybrid
Multimodal Chain-of-Thought ( Zhang et al. [2023b] )
✓
–
Textual – Generated Knowledge
Caption as Context
✓
–
Textual – Ensemble
Ensemble of Prompts
✓
–
Textual – External Knowledge
Textual Center Coordinates, Textual Boundary Coordinates
–
✓
Visual – Contextual Information
Objects as Context (ours)
✓
✓
Visual – Markers
Overlay Bounding Boxes, Overlay Elliptic Markers
–
✓
Table 2: Summary of prompting strategies evaluated in our benchmark, grouped by the taxonomy in Section 3 .
Figure 5: Example of all visual prompting methods side-by-side compared to the base image (a). (b) Overlay Bounding Boxes highlights humans and objects with rectangular boxes. (c) Overlay Elliptic Markers uses ellipses to indicate the queried regions. (d) Blur the Background removes contextual clutter by blurring everything outside the target entities. (e) Crop focuses only on the cropped human–object pair. (f) Black Other Objects masks all objects except the queried pair while preserving the background. (g) Gray the Background reduces distraction by desaturating non-target regions.
Model
mAP ↑
Diff. Answers
Incoherences
MiniCPM-V 1
48.20
0%
10.06%
MiniCPM-V 2
47.48
0%
2.74%
LLaVA-OV-0.5B (OV)
46.15
0%
1.25%
LLaVA-OV-0.5B (SI)
44.61
0%
2.27%
Phi-3.5-Vision
40.44
7.05%
0.00%
InternVL2.5-1B
41.81
7.44%
0.48%
Table 3: Comparison of MLLMs on the HICO dataset: performance and score soundness study.
Strategy
MiniCPM-V 1
Qwen2-VL 2B
LLaVA-OV 0.5B (OV)
MCoT
39.45
30.94
-
Caption as Context
44.81
49.43
-
Objects as Context
44.54
53.50
47.79
Table 4: Evaluations on HICO dataset using zero-shot strategies.
Figure 6: Evaluation on HICO dataset with different number of prompts using Ensemble of Prompts.
Method
mAP
Supervised methods
R*CNN ( Gkioxari et al. [2015] )
28.5
PaStaNet ( Li et al. [2020] )
46.3
DEFR ( Jin et al. [2022] )
65.6
Partially zero-shot
VCL † ( Hou et al. [2020] )
26.7
Table 5: Comparison with prior work for HOI recognition on HICO. Note: † results are reported in Ma et al. [2022] .
Method
HICO-DET
V-COCO
Full
Rare
Non-rare
AProle#1
AProle#2
MiniCPM-V 1
Baseline
20.78
26.63
19.03
19.95
21.98
Objects as Context
22.17
27.53
20.57
21.46
23.09
Overlay Bounding Boxes
15.90
19.55
14.81
5.65
6.11
Overlay Elliptic Marker
17.70
22.55
16.25
5.94
6.24
Table 6: Pure zero-shot evaluation on HICO-DET and V-COCO of the prompting strategies for object specification.
Method
HICO-DET
V-COCO
Full
Rare
Non-rare
AProle#1
AProle#2
Fully supervised
GEN-VLKT ( Liao et al. [2022] )
34.95
31.18
36.08
63.6
65.9
SICHOI ( Luo et al. [2024] )
45.04
45.61
44.88
71.1
75.6
Pose-Aware ( Wu et al. [2024a] )
46.01
46.74
45.80
63.0
68.7
Pre-trained object detector
Table 7: Comparison with other methods on HICO-DET and V-COCO. Fully supervised methods are trained end-to-end with HOI annotations, while methods with a pre-trained object detector reuse a pre-trained object detector and train only the interaction head. Partially zero-shot methods hold out 120 action–object pairs during training and report HICO-DET performance over the full set of 600 classes, without separate Rare and Non-rare results. V-COCO does not define an analogous held-out setting. Pure zero-shot methods do not use any HOI training data. Not all methods are evaluated on both datasets; - denotes results that are not reported. We report the best overall configuration from Table 6 as our method.
Method
mAP
Full
Rare
Non-rare
MiniCPM-V 1
Baseline
46.35
47.79
45.32
Objects as Context
48.41
50.85
47.68
Overlay Bounding Boxes
39.31
42.06
38.49
Overlay Elliptic Marker
42.89
45.38
42.14
Table 8: Pure zero-shot evaluation on HICO-DET removing the effect of the object detector.
Figure 7: Image examples of the HOIs that exhibit the highest performance gains when applying the identified prompting methods. Objects as Context improves detection for interactions Sign baseball bat (+47.69 AP), Wash sheep (+29.44 AP) and Repair oven (+27.26 AP), while Black Other Objects enhances detection for Inspect backpack (+34.43 AP), Sign baseball bat (+28.83 AP) and Eat cake (+28.75 AP).
Figure 8: Image examples of the HOIs that exhibit the highest performance losses when applying the identified prompting methods. Objects as Context suffers detection decrease for interactions No_interaction spoon (-28.90 AP), No_interaction carrot (-21.41 AP) and Fill wine glass (-17.62 AP), while Black Other Objects downgrades detection for Lie on surfboard (-48.34 AP), No_interaction bicycle (-36.23 AP) and Buy pizza (-35.97 AP).
Figure 9: Impact of prompting methods on HICO-DET using ground truth bounding boxes. (a) Number of HOIs showing an increase or decrease in AP compared to the baseline for all prompting methods. (b) Performance of the proposed methods relative to the number of detected objects of the target class. (c) Performance gains of the proposed methods on the most challenging classes. Most challenging classes are considered those that have a lower average AP over all object specification approaches.
Figure 10: Examples where Objects as Context (a-d) and Black Other Objects (e-f) correctly classify a HOI that all other methods fail to detect: (a) a focused crop of the pilot, (b) a crop of the person holding the STOP sign, (c) a crop of the small and partially occluded cell phone, and (d) a crop of the laptop and the interacting person presumably help the model with more specific visual context. (e) Masking other cyclists and (f) masking irrelevant overlapping objects presumably direct model’s attention to the correct interaction.
Object Detector
MiniCPM-V 1
Qwen2-VL 2B
#Questions
YOLOX-x ( Ge et al. [2021] )
48.59
52.45
275,746
YOLO11-x ( Khanam and Hussain [2024] )
48.20
51.39
251,593
Faster R-CNN ( Ren et al. [2015] )
48.31
52.28
351,466
DINO ( Zhang et al. [2022a] )
51.27
55.49
352,653
Table 9: Comparison of object detectors. Evaluation is conducted on HICO. # Questions denotes the number of retained queries after the object detector filtering step. All models are trained on MS-COCO.
τ
MiniCPM-V 1
Qwen2-VL 2B
#Questions
0.00
50.98
53.59
990,910
0.05
49.33
52.61
273,668
0.10
48.20
51.39
251,593
0.25
47.92
51.67
223,304
0.40
47.06
50.82
206,492
0.50
46.23
49.63
195,441
Table 10: Effect of varying class score thresholds in the pipeline. Evaluation conducted on HICO.
Table 21
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Strategy
MiniCPM-V 1
Qwen2-VL 2B
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
Baseline
98.88
99.10
98.68
MCoT
99.15
98.99
-
Caption as Context
99.03
99.21
-
Objects as Context
98.67
99.16
99.51
Appendix
Table D.1 : Thresholded accuracy (%) on HICO. Binary predictions are obtained by thresholding the predicted probabilities at 0.5 .
Hyperparameter
Value
Attention implementation
Flash Attention 2 from Dao [2023]
Generation strategy
Greedy
Maximum number of new tokens
1
Maximum number of output tokens for generated knowledge
256
Minimum size of cropped objects 3 3 3 Only apply to Qwen2-VL and LLaVA-OneVision models.
28 per side
Appendix
Table E.1 : List of hyperparameters for MLLMs in inference mode.
Model
MiniCPM-V 1
Qwen2-VL 2B
#Questions
nano
43.37
47.16
240,581
small
45.86
49.73
249,280
medium
47.28
51.15
251,102
large
48.55
52.32
252,084
extra-large
48.20
51.39
251,593
MLLM (Qwen2-VL 2B)
50.96
14.45
264,782
Appendix
Table F.1 : Performance across YOLO11 model sizes. Evaluation conducted on HICO. All detectors are trained on MS-COCO.
Zero-shot Human-object interaction (HOI) detection aims to locate humans and objects in images and recognize their interactions. While advances in open-vocabulary object detection provide promising solutions for object localization, interaction recognition (IR) remains challenging due to the combinatorial diversity of interactions. Existing methods, including two-stage methods, tightly couple IR with a specific detector and rely on coarse-grained vision-language model (VLM) features, which limit generalization to unseen interactions. In this work, we propose a decoupled framework that separates object detection from IR and leverages multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) for zero-shot IR. We introduce a deterministic generation method that formulates IR as a visual question answering task and enforces deterministic outputs, enabling training-free zero-shot IR. To further enhance performance and efficiency by fine-tuning the model, we design a spatial-aware pooling module that integrates appearance and pairwise spatial cues, and a one-pass deterministic matching method that predicts all candidate interactions in a single forward pass. Extensive experiments on HICO-DET and V-COCO demonstrate that our method achieves superior zero-shot performance, strong cross-dataset generalization, and the flexibility to integrate with any object detectors without retraining. The codes are publicly available at https://github.com/SY-Xuan/DA-HOI.
Shiyu Xuan, Dongkai Wang, Zechao Li +1
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology · School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics · Nanjing Forestry University
Human-Object Interaction (HOI) detection is a longstanding computer vision problem concerned with predicting the interaction between humans and objects. Current HOI models rely on a vocabulary of interactions at training and inference time, limiting their applicability to static environments. With the advent of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), it has become feasible to explore more flexible paradigms for interaction recognition. In this work, we revisit HOI detection through the lens of MLLMs and apply them to in-the-wild HOI detection. We define the Unconstrained HOI (U-HOI) task, a novel HOI domain that removes the requirement for a predefined list of interactions at both training and inference. We evaluate a range of MLLMs on this setting and introduce a pipeline that includes test-time inference and language-to-graph conversion to extract structured interactions from free-form text. Our findings highlight the limitations of current HOI detectors and the value of MLLMs for U-HOI. Code will be available at https://github.com/francescotonini/anyhoi
Francesco Tonini, Alessandro Conti, Lorenzo Vaquero +2
Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy · Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy · Department of Computer Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Human-object interaction (HOI) detection aims to localize human-object pairs and recognize their interactions. Traditional supervised methods perform strongly but rely on task-specific training. Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) offer a promising route to training-free HOI detection through their broad visual-semantic knowledge and versatile perceptual and reasoning capabilities. However, existing approaches largely invoke these capabilities through loosely coordinated inference stages. This fragmented execution restricts the role of interaction hypotheses in guiding visual exploration, leaving key participants overlooked and local ambiguities unresolved. Furthermore, propagating early semantic assumptions through subsequent visual grounding and relation prediction induces self-reinforcing semantic circularity. To resolve these challenges, we propose HarnessHOI, a training-free framework that transforms passive MLLM inference into an active interaction-centric harness. Specifically, we introduce an interaction-guided perception mechanism that projects emerging interaction hypotheses back into the visual space to discover missing participants and refine ambiguous evidence through targeted observation. Furthermore, a relation-agnostic geometric adjudication module reconciles multi-source evidence to establish a unified spatial basis for grounded interaction reasoning across multiple actions and semantic roles. Extensive experiments on HICO-DET and V-COCO demonstrate that HarnessHOI achieves state-of-the-art performance among training-free methods, confirming the effectiveness of the proposed harness for complex interaction understanding. Code will be released upon publication.
Zhaolin Cai, Huiyu Duan, Liu Yang +5
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Xinjiang University · Beijing Jiaotong University +1