Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on static visual understanding benchmarks, yet their ability to act in dynamic environments remains less well understood. We introduce AtariBench, a controlled benchmark that evaluates VLMs across 20 Atari 2600 games, requiring models to make sequential decisions from high-temporal-resolution gameplay streams. By decoupling fast in-game dynamics from wall-clock inference speed, AtariBench focuses on whether models can perceive rapid visual state changes, reason over spatiotemporal dynamics, and ground actions in the current observation. Our experiments reveal substantial limitations in state-of-the-art VLMs: models often fail to infer object motion and direction, exhibit brittle sequential decision-making, and over-rely on textual interaction history despite newly appended visual feedback. We further introduce a separability analysis to identify which in-game scores provide reliable signals of model competence, and use the benchmark to study how memory design and prompting strategies affect performance. Overall, AtariBench exposes a persistent gap between passive visual perception and active decision-making, providing a lightweight and rigorous testbed for developing VLMs that can reason and act in dynamic environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Workflow of AtariBench. At each turn, the harness assembles game instructions, interaction history, and the current frame into a prompt; the VLM returns a thought and an action sequence, which is executed in ALE, and the resulting frames and feedback are added to the history.
Figure 2: Fast temporal dynamics in Assault . The enemy projectile appears at t=0.1 s and already hits the player at t=0.3 s, motivating high temporal resolution and 10 Hz control.
Game
Primary Skill
#Goals
Action
Reward Density
Visual Load
Tempo
Shooter
AirRaid
Aiming & Avoidance
2
H+A
Dense
Low
High
Assault
Aiming & Avoidance
3
H+A
Dense
Low
High
BeamRider
Aiming & Avoidance
2
H+A
Dense
High
High
DemonAttack
Aiming & Avoidance
2
H+A
Dense
Low
High
LaserGates
Multi-task Navigation
2
B+A
Dense
High
High
Table 1: AtariBench game taxonomy. #Goals: number of distinct in-game goals. Action: A=fire/attack/throw, H=horizontal, V=vertical, B=both horizontal and vertical. Reward density and visual load are qualitative summaries. Tempo reflects the degree of timing precision required for competent play.
Figure 3: Model performance ranks across the 20 AtariBench games used in the main analysis, including the standard structured-history settings and the Gemini 3.1 Pro append-only (AO) settings. Game-specific RL agents and a random-action baseline are also included. Rows are ordered by average per-game rank; raw reward values are reported in Appendix B.1 .
Figure 4: Game separability analysis across the 20 AtariBench games. Bars show the best-model-vs-random effect size, points show the top-quartile-vs-bottom-quartile effect size, and the right-hand matrix marks whether each of the three criteria passes. Games are strongly separable when at least two criteria pass and weakly separable when exactly one passes.
Figure 5: Append-only versus structured-history performance on three representative games for Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Gemini 3 Flash. Bars show mean total reward, and error bars show standard error over runs. All models use default thinking.
Model (reasoning)
Perception
Motion
Decision
Overall
Gemini 2.5 Flash (off)
88.0%
51.0%
48.0%
62.3%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (on)
85.0%
47.0%
65.0%
65.7%
Gemini 2.5 Pro (default)
93.0%
54.0%
79.0%
75.3%
Gemini 3 Flash (low)
98.0%
64.0%
88.0%
83.3%
Gemini 3 Flash (high)
99.0%
63.0%
82.0%
81.3%
Gemini 3.1 Pro (low)
100.0%
69.0%
82.0%
83.7%
Table 2: Model accuracy on 60 manually curated diagnostic questions, with five queries per question.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Game
Protocol
Runs
Mean ± SE
SD
DemonAttack
Game-over termination
30
70.0±6.6
36.3
DemonAttack
Fixed 30 seconds
10
41.0±4.3
13.7
Phoenix
Game-over termination
30
171.3±19.5
106.6
Phoenix
Fixed 30 seconds
10
198.0±27.4
86.6
Appendix
Table 3: Gemini 2.5 Flash reward variability under original game-over termination versus the current fixed 30-second protocol. We report mean reward ± standard error and per-run standard deviation (SD).
Phoenix (neutral)
Phoenix (survival prompt)
Model
Reward
Survival
Neutral
Avg
Reward
Survival
Neutral
Avg
seeking
focused
Reward
seeking
focused
Reward
Gemini 2.5 Flash
76
19
5
177.9
68
25
7
195.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
59
34
7
239.5
80
16
4
243.8
Appendix
Table 4: Legacy strategy-sensitivity diagnostic under game-over termination. We report the number of reasoning traces classified as reward-seeking or survival-focused out of 100 sampled traces, along with the average reward at termination.
Figure 6: Example evaluation prompt for Breakout.
Figure 7: Raw model rewards across the 20 AtariBench games used in the main analysis, including the Gemini 3.1 Pro append-only settings shown in Fig. 3 . The first row reports rewards for game-specific RL agents on 16 games, with “-” indicating unavailable results. Cell values preserve each game’s raw reward scale, while colors are normalized within each game. Avg Rank is computed as in Fig. 3 .
Model
Game
Full feedback
No feedback
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Breakout
4.5±0.2
4.7±0.3
Air Raid
225.0±23.9
215.0±29.6
Pacman
31.6±5.4
26.7±3.1
Fishing Derby
−8.4±1.8
−8.6±1.4
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Breakout
2.3±0.3
1.5±0.3
Air Raid
255.0±45.3
282.5±30.1
Appendix
Table 5: Textual feedback ablation. Scores are mean ± SE over ten seeds.
Figure 8: Breakout example with Gemini 2.5 Flash in which textual life-loss feedback makes the reset state explicit. After the harness reports that a new life has begun, the model selects start , which serves the next ball and resumes play. Without textual feedback, the model stalls and fails to press start to proceed.
Model
Game
1 action
1–5 actions
1–10 actions
Gemini 3 Flash
Air Raid
295.0±33.3
340.0±36.7
300.0±31.0
Breakout
4.6±0.2
4.5±0.2
3.7±0.3
Fishing Derby
−6.6±2.1
−8.4±1.7
−7.2±1.4
Pacman
17.4±4.0
13.6±3.1
11.9±2.8
GPT-5.4 Mini
Air Raid
175.0±18.3
265.0±39.8
217.5±41.2
Breakout
3.4±0.2
3.8±0.3
3.9±0.3
Appendix
Table 6: Reward under different allowed action-chunk lengths (mean ± SE over ten seeds). Variable-length conditions permit the model to choose shorter sequences at each turn.
Figure 9: In Name This Game, GPT-5.4 ( high ) states that no shark is visible despite the white shark in the current frame (10.30 s; enlarged at right).
Figure 10: In this Freeway case, GPT-5.4 ( high ) describes a historical car position as current; with history removed and the remaining input and model settings unchanged, the erroneous relation is no longer stated (see Appendix D.2 ).
Figure 11: Breakout example of Gemini 3.1 Pro where the model misidentifies the ball’s motion direction.
Figure 12: Assault text-history-overreliance case in GPT-5.4 Mini. After an earlier rewarded upward shot, the model says recent shots are hitting despite updated frames showing the remaining alien left of its firing lane. Two more upward shots yield no reward.
Figure 13: Example of action stagnation under append-only prompting in Breakout. Despite receiving updated frames and feedback, the model repeatedly outputs only noop actions; we observe this behavior in Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Gemini 3 Flash.
Figure 14: Original VLM-judge failures (left, n=106 ) and paired spatial-relation re-queries (right, n=28 ). Current-frame-only inputs remove history images and associated text while retaining the current frame, game instructions, and model settings. Responses without a spatial-relation statement are re-queried with identical input; the first response stating a relation is assessed, whether correct or incorrect. Correct relations need not explicitly repair the original claim. The matched error odds ratio (OR; current only versus complete input) has an exact 95% confidence interval.
Capability
Prompt text before interleaved frames
Perception: detection
This is the Atari game Fishing Derby. How many yellow fish are in the game? Choose from 4, 5, 6, or 7.
Perception: spatial reasoning
This is the Atari game Fishing Derby. In the last frame, focus on the deepest fish in the left half of the sea and the left player’s fishing line. Is the left player’s fishing line currently to the left or to the right of that fish? Choose from left or right.
Motion: target object
This is the Atari game Fishing Derby. Focus on the deepest fish in the left half of the sea. Which direction is that fish moving? Choose from left or right.
Motion: controlled object
This is the Atari game Fishing Derby. Focus on the left player’s fishing line. Across the timestamped sequence, what is the fishing line’s overall movement direction? Choose only one from upright, upleft, downleft, downright, up, down, left, right, or still.
Decision: short
This is the Atari game Fishing Derby. Focus on the deepest fish in the left half of the sea and the left player’s fishing line. To catch that deepest fish, which direction should the left player’s fishing line move next? Choose from left or right.
Decision: long
This is the Atari game Fishing Derby. Action Planning Guidelines: [complete Fishing Derby guide included in the model prompt; omitted here, approximately 500 tokens of instruction]. Using the frame sequence, focus on the deepest fish in the left half of the sea and the left player’s fishing line. First identify that target fish and the current position of the left player’s fishing line, then infer their motion. To catch that fish, which direction should the left player’s fishing line move next? Choose from left or right.
Appendix
Table 7: Diagnostic question prompts for each capability group, using Fishing Derby as an example. The long decision prompt additionally prepends the game-specific guidelines.
Setting
State-estimation failures
Planning failures with correct state
Other
Propagation
GPT-5.4 (high)
37/50 (74%)
3/50 (6%)
10/50 (20%)
26/37 (70.3%)
GPT-5.4 (low)
29/50 (58%)
12/50 (24%)
9/50 (18%)
20/29 (69.0%)
Appendix
Table 8: Failure types among 50 failed turns per setting. State estimation, planning with a substantially correct state estimate, and other failures are mutually exclusive. Propagation is measured only among state-estimation failures.
Model setting
Turns
Failures
Text Overreliance Failures
Overreliance Rate
GPT-5.4 (high)
60
21
2
9.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro (low)
60
20
0
0.0%
GPT-5.4 Mini (low)
60
24
5
20.8%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (off)
60
43
10
23.3%
Two stronger settings
120
41
2
4.9%
Two weaker settings
120
67
15
22.4%
Appendix
Table 9: Text-history overreliance in sampled gameplay turns. Failures counts the observable failures identified by the judge, and Overreliance Rate is the percentage of these failures attributed to text-history overreliance.
Setting
Runs
Calls
Input tok.
Output tok.
Thinking tok.
Est. cost
Ours
200
27,938
140.81M
2.85M
17.18M
$522
Appendix
Table 10: Estimated Gemini 3.1 Pro API cost for 200 AtariBench runs (20 games × 10 runs).
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at describing visual scenes, yet struggle to translate perception into precise, grounded actions. We investigate whether providing VLMs with both the visual frame and the symbolic representation of the scene can improve their performance in interactive environments. We evaluate three state-of-the-art VLMs across Atari games, VizDoom, and AI2-THOR, comparing frame-only, frame with self-extracted symbols, frame with ground-truth symbols, and symbol-only pipelines. Our results indicate that all models benefit when the symbolic information is accurate. However, when VLMs extract symbols themselves, performance becomes dependent on model capability and scene complexity. We further investigate how accurately VLMs can extract symbolic information from visual inputs and how noise in these symbols affects decision-making and gameplay performance. Our findings reveal that symbolic grounding is beneficial in VLMs only when symbol extraction is reliable, and highlight perception quality as a central bottleneck for future VLM-based agents.
Visual reasoning is an important capability for vision-language models (VLMs) to understand visual evidence, spatial structure, constraints, and state changes. Existing evaluations mainly rely on real-world data or procedurally generated tasks. Real-world data preserve natural complexity, while procedural games provide controllable generation and verifiable solutions. However, it remains unclear whether abilities measured in toy games correspond to real-world visual reasoning and whether game examples can support transfer. We introduce Game2Real-Bench, a benchmark that studies these connections across four capability groups, including fine-grained perception, spatial reasoning, constraint reasoning, and sequential planning. We construct 1,000 procedurally generated game samples with executable verification and curate 400 real-world samples aligned by shared reasoning requirements rather than visual similarity. We evaluate 25 representative VLMs and observe strong game-to-real consistency, with Pearson and Spearman correlations of 0.935. We further study one-shot game-to-real transfer on four models. Constraint reasoning improves for several models, while fine-grained perception declines with game demonstrations. We also construct Game2Real-Dataset with nearly 24K verified game samples across 18 tasks and 65 QA families. Our benchmark, dataset, and code are available at https://github.com/QingAnLiu/Game2Real-Bench.
Qingan Liu, Juntong Feng, Yue Zhu +6
Dalian University of Technology · Nanyang Technological University
Visual entity tracking is an innate cognitive ability in humans, yet it remains a critical bottleneck for Vision-Language Models (VLMs). This deficit is often obscured in existing video benchmarks by visual shortcuts. We introduce VET-Bench, a synthetic diagnostic testbed featuring visually identical objects that necessitate tracking exclusively through spatiotemporal continuity. Our experiments reveal that current state-of-the-art VLMs perform at or near chance level on VET-Bench, exposing a fundamental limitation: an over-reliance on static frame-level features and a failure to maintain entity representations over time. We provide a theoretical analysis drawing connections to the state-tracking problem, proving that fixed-depth transformer-based VLMs are fundamentally limited in tracking indistinguishable objects without intermediate supervision due to expressivity constraints. To address this, we propose Spatiotemporal Grounded Chain-of-Thought (SGCoT): generating object trajectories as explicit intermediate states. Leveraging Molmo2's object tracking ability, we elicit SGCoT reasoning by fine-tuning on synthesized text-only data for alignment. Our method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy exceeding 90% on VET-Bench, demonstrating that VLMs can reliably solve the video shell-game task end-to-end without external tools. Our code and data are available at https://vetbench.github.io .