All papersComputer VisionSalesforce

Interactive Visual Gym: Evaluating Visual Interaction Models with Simulated Users in Interactive Worlds

/ Paper arXiv 2611.08286

Key numbers

53.4%completes only 53.4% of tasks within the time limit
78.5%…evaluation protocol with a human study which finds 78.5% agreement between our interaction-quality metric and participant…

From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.

Why this ranked

MeasuredPublic numbers, not AIHow ranking works

24 / 100#12 of 1200 papers that day, from GitHub, Hugging Face, Hacker News and Semantic Scholar, looked up the morning it was ranked.

Builder evidence8 / 40

  • Code released

Community attention11.4 / 30

  • ▲ 13 upvotes on Hugging Face

Author track record5 / 15

  • From Salesforce (a known lab)

What the paper shows0 / 15

  • Nothing found

Abstract

From the paperThe authors' own words.

Visual interaction models that support users during ongoing physical tasks require evaluation in closed loop, where assistant responses can change subsequent user behavior and task outcomes. Existing benchmarks largely rely on offline replay and therefore cannot capture these effects. We introduce Interactive Visual Gym, a framework for closed-loop evaluation and training of visual interaction models through joint simulation of executable task environments and human users. We contribute three simulators that recreate everyday tasks and human-aligned action spaces across cooking, household manipulation, and mobile-interface domains, together with a persona-conditioned user simulation harness that collaborates with the assistant while incorporating controlled execution errors and other out-of-plan behaviors. We instantiate the framework as IVG-Bench, a benchmark with 315 interaction scenarios. Evaluating state-of-the-art VLMs as visual interaction models reveals substantial limitations: the best-performing model, Gemini 4 Argon, completes only 53.4% of tasks within the time limit, exhibits significant weaknesses in factual grounding and actionable guidance, and is often too slow to prevent errors when response latency is considered. We verify our evaluation protocol with a human study which finds 78.5% agreement between our interaction-quality metric and participant preferences. We further show that the environments provide useful learning signals: in a proof-of-concept GRPO experiment, closed-loop training improves both task success and interaction quality for Qwen3.5-4B model in our cooking environment.

From the full paper

From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.

Reading the paper on arXiv…

Ask this paper

/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section

    / Your notes

    Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.

      Read the PDF