Skip to content
← Back to explorer

StreamGaze: Gaze-Guided Temporal Reasoning and Proactive Understanding in Streaming Videos

Daeun Lee, Subhojyoti Mukherjee, Branislav Kveton, Ryan A. Rossi, Viet Dac Lai, Seunghyun Yoon, Trung Bui, Franck Dernoncourt, Mohit Bansal · Dec 1, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses. While prior streaming benchmarks evaluate temporal reasoning, none measure whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can interpret or leverage human gaze signals within a streaming setting. To fill this gap, we introduce StreamGaze, the first benchmark designed to evaluate how effectively MLLMs utilize gaze for temporal and proactive reasoning in streaming videos. StreamGaze introduces gaze-guided past, present, and proactive tasks that comprehensively assess streaming video understanding. These tasks evaluate whether models can use real-time gaze signals to follow shifting attention and infer user intentions based only on past and currently observed frames. To build StreamGaze, we develop a gaze-video Question Answering (QA) generation pipeline that aligns egocentric videos with raw gaze trajectories through fixation extraction, region-specific visual prompting, and scanpath construction. This pipeline produces spatio-temporally grounded QA pairs that reflect human perceptual dynamics. Across all StreamGaze tasks, we observe substantial performance gaps between state-of-the-art MLLMs and human performance, highlighting key limitations in gaze-based temporal reasoning, intention modeling, and proactive prediction. We further provide detailed analyses of gaze prompting strategies, reasoning behaviors, and task-specific failure modes, offering insights into current limitations and directions for future research. All data and code are publicly available to support continued research in gaze-guided streaming video understanding.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Streaming video understanding requires models not only to process temporally incoming frames, but also to anticipate user intention for realistic applications such as Augmented Reality (AR) glasses.
  • While prior streaming benchmarks evaluate temporal reasoning, none measure whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can interpret or leverage human gaze signals within a streaming setting.
  • To fill this gap, we introduce StreamGaze, the first benchmark designed to evaluate how effectively MLLMs utilize gaze for temporal and proactive reasoning in streaming videos.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • While prior streaming benchmarks evaluate temporal reasoning, none measure whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can interpret or leverage human gaze signals within a streaming setting.
  • To fill this gap, we introduce StreamGaze, the first benchmark designed to evaluate how effectively MLLMs utilize gaze for temporal and proactive reasoning in streaming videos.
  • To build StreamGaze, we develop a gaze-video Question Answering (QA) generation pipeline that aligns egocentric videos with raw gaze trajectories through fixation extraction, region-specific visual prompting, and scanpath construction.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • While prior streaming benchmarks evaluate temporal reasoning, none measure whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can interpret or leverage human gaze signals within a streaming setting.
  • To fill this gap, we introduce StreamGaze, the first benchmark designed to evaluate how effectively MLLMs utilize gaze for temporal and proactive reasoning in streaming videos.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.