Pixels to Keys: Exploring Spatial and Motion Cues in Gameplay Inverse Dynamics
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Video games offer scalable environments for studying perception and control in embodied agents. Abundant online gameplay videos could supply demonstrations, but they rarely include player inputs for training. Inverse Dynamics Models (IDMs) have thus been proposed to infer inputs from frames. Large (up to 1B parameters) IDMs trained on $\sim$1K-2K gameplay hours demonstrate feasibility and cross-environment generalization at this scale, but researchers do not clarify what the key components are to recover individual actions and often report only aggregate accuracy that can mask rare-action failures. We study the problem in a data-constrained scenario to evaluate how spatial motion features, model architectures, and training objectives affect an IDM's outcome and we analyse our models on per-key and balanced metrics such as $F_1^{macro}$. Our experiments on Trackmania highlight the importance of factors like the model architecture and motion flow extraction in preprocessing, while also showing the limits of evaluation through unbalanced metrics. The application of the same architecture and training recipe to Cyberpunk 2077 reveals uneven performance across game mechanics. Our per-action evaluation and failure analysis highlight ambiguities from camera motion, delayed effects and imbalanced key-press frequencies that call for explicit modeling of 3D scene structure, long-term state and the adoption of proper losses in future implementations.
Results and benchmarks
Video games offer scalable environments for studying perception and control in embodied agents.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
None detected
Domains
Computer vision
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.