Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Exploring the Application of Visual Question Answering (VQA) for Classroom Activity Monitoring

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Off-the-shelf VQA models hit 80% on classroom yes/no questions

desk verdict A sensible new application and dataset idea, but the web-demo evaluation and unreleased data make the 'promising performance' claim unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22369 v3 pith:FWEBWBQE submitted 2025-07-30 cs.CV cs.AI

Sinh Trong Vu , Hieu Trung Pham , Dung Manh Nguyen , Hieu Minh Hoang , Nhu Hoang Le , Thu Ha Pham , Tai Tan Mai This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords VisualQuestionAnsweringClassroomActivityMonitoringVideoQAMultimodalLearningLargeLanguageModelsDatasetConstructionBehaviorRecognitionBenchmarking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that off-the-shelf, open-source visual question answering (VQA) models can already support basic classroom behavior monitoring without any classroom-specific fine-tuning. To test this, the authors build BAV-Classroom-VQA, a new dataset of short clips from real university lectures annotated with closed-ended and open-ended questions across five categories. They benchmark four open-source models and report yes/no accuracies up to 80%, single-choice accuracies between roughly 48% and 62%, and open-ended BERTScore values around 0.69–0.75. The paper's central claim is that these numbers show VQA is a feasible first step toward semi-automated classroom analytics and intervention systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is BAV-Classroom-VQA, a new dataset of 20–30 second clips from a university classroom video repository, each clip paired with questions in five categories (single-choice, multiple-choice, factual, reasoning, spatial) and two answer formats (closed-ended and open-ended). The dataset carries the argument: the paper's feasibility conclusion is derived entirely from how four open-source VQA models score on it. The supporting mechanism is the two-metric evaluation protocol—accuracy for closed-ended questions, and BERTScore plus ROUGE-L for open-ended questions—which separates a model's ability to pick a correct option from its ability to phrase a semantically acceptable free-form answer.

What would settle it

Run the full BAV-Classroom-VQA question set through locally hosted QWEN3 and NVILA checkpoints with deterministic decoding and compare the scores to the web-interface results; a substantial drop in accuracy would show that the paper's 'promising performance' reflects interface behavior rather than model capability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that current open-source VQA models, used as-is, perform at a 'promising' level on behavior-related visual questions about real classroom video. The evidence is the new BAV-Classroom-VQA dataset and an evaluation protocol that treats closed-ended and open-ended questions separately. For yes/no questions the best models reach 80% accuracy, single-choice questions score between 47.6% and 61.9%, and open-ended answers achieve BERTScore of 0.69–0.75 with ROUGE-L of 0.31–0.41. The authors read the strong factual and object-detection scores alongside the weak action-recognition and reasoning scores as showing that the technology can handle quick recognition checks but still struggles with higher-order interpretation of classroom events.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation of QWEN3 and NVILA through public web chat interfaces assumes those interfaces behave like controlled local model inference, and if they do not, the reported accuracies for these two models are not reliable measures of their capability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing open-source VQA models could be deployed for quick classroom checks such as counting students or detecting object use, without custom training.
  • Yes/no accuracy of up to 80% suggests binary monitoring questions are close to being practical, so such questions could serve as a first-pass filter that flags clips for human review.
  • The low scores on action recognition and reasoning mean automated interpretation of complex interactions is not yet reliable.
  • Because the videos were privacy-masked and access-controlled, the approach shows that classroom analytics need not expose personally identifiable information.
  • The BAV-Classroom-VQA dataset provides a reusable benchmark for future classroom VQA research and for domain-specific fine-tuning experiments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A controlled re-run of QWEN3 and NVILA on local checkpoints, rather than web chat interfaces, is needed before their reported accuracies can be taken as measures of model capability; the paper's own evaluation setup leaves that open.
  • If the 80% yes/no accuracy survives controlled inference, then a small amount of classroom-specific fine-tuning could plausibly push these models across a practical deployment threshold.
  • The paper does not report inter-annotator agreement on the gold answers, so the true ceiling of its accuracy numbers is unknown; measuring agreement would clarify how much of the remaining error is model error versus label noise.
  • The question taxonomy aligns with standard classroom observation coding schemes, so the same dataset could double as a testbed for comparing VQA models against human observer agreement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces BAV-Classroom-VQA, a new dataset of classroom video clips annotated with close-ended and open-ended visual questions, and benchmarks four open-source VQA models (VideoLLaMA2, VideoLLaMA3, Qwen3, and NVILA) on this dataset. The authors report accuracy for Yes/No and Single-Choice questions and BERTScore/ROUGE-L for open-ended questions, and they discuss per-model strengths and weaknesses. The central claim, stated in the Abstract and Section 5.1, is that all four models achieve promising performance on behavior-related visual questions, suggesting feasibility of VQA-based classroom analytics. The paper also describes a data collection and annotation methodology for classroom videos from the Banking Academy of Vietnam.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, this paper would provide useful initial evidence that zero-shot VQA models can assist in classroom behavior monitoring, and the BAV-Classroom-VQA dataset could be a valuable resource for a domain that currently lacks a dedicated VQA benchmark. The authors cover a real-world application, include multiple question categories (factual, spatial, counting, reasoning, etc.), and report both a lexical metric (ROUGE-L) and a semantic metric (BERTScore). These are commendable choices for an exploratory study. However, the significance is substantially weakened by the evaluation protocol: two of the four models were tested through public web chat interfaces rather than controlled local inference, the dataset is not released and test samples are promised only in future versions, and no sample sizes or statistical tests are provided. The paper does not ship code or a reproducible evaluation harness, so the quantitative results are not independently verifiable in their current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3.1; Tables 1–3] Qwen3 and NVILA were evaluated through public web interfaces (chat.qwen.ai and vila.hanlab.ai), not through controlled local inference. Public demos can serve different checkpoints than the named ones, apply hidden prompt formatting or sampling parameters, and change over time, so the reported accuracies and scores for these two models cannot be reliably attributed to the open-source Qwen3-235B-A22B and NVILA-8B models. Because Qwen3 and NVILA are the strongest open-ended scorers in Table 2 and contribute heavily to the Abstract's claim that 'all four models achieve promising performance,' this is a load-bearing issue. The authors should rerun both models locally with fixed checkpoints and report the exact inference configuration, including prompt template, sampling settings, and model version.
  2. [Section 3.2; Section 5.2] The BAV-Classroom-VQA dataset is neither released nor fully specified. Section 5.2 states that test samples 'will be added in future versions of the dataset,' implying that the current version has no test split or that all samples were used for evaluation. The paper also does not report the number of video clips, the number of questions per type, or the number of questions per model. Without these counts and a public release, the percentages in Tables 1–3 cannot be interpreted or independently checked. The authors should provide detailed dataset statistics, state whether any training or validation split is used, and describe a release plan.
  3. [Section 4; Tables 1–3] No sample sizes, confidence intervals, error bars, or significance tests are reported. Differences such as 80% versus 75% Yes/No accuracy in Table 1, or a 0.03 difference in BERTScore in Table 2, are treated as meaningful, but with unknown N they may be well within chance variation. The authors should report the number of questions per category and per model and apply appropriate statistical tests or at least bootstrap confidence intervals to support the qualitative ranking of models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.3.1] The model names are inconsistent: the Abstract says 'LLaMA2, LLaMA3, QWEN3, and NVILA,' while Section 3.3.1 lists 'VideoLLaMA2, VideoLLaMA3, NVILA-8B, and Qwen3-235B-A22B'; the Introduction also refers to 'LLaMA2, LLaMA3.' Please use the full, consistent model names throughout.
  2. [Section 3.2] There is an apparent contradiction: the text first lists 'Single-Choice, Multiple-Choice, Factual, Reasoning, Spatial' as included question types, then says the authors excluded 'Attribute Classification, Comparative, and Multiple-Choice' questions. Please clarify whether multiple-choice questions are included or excluded, and distinguish multiple-choice from single-choice.
  3. [Section 4.2.1] The sentence 'the Factual and Object Detection questions yielded the highest scores, ranging from 0.7 to 0.9' is inconsistent with Table 3, where Factual BERTScore values are 0.93–0.95; please correct the range or the description.
  4. [Section 4.2.2] The claim that VideoLLaMA3 'showed lower performance in Counting (0.7265, 0.2000) compared to other models' is imprecise because NVILA and QWEN3 have the same ROUGE-L value of 0.2000 for Counting; please rephrase to state which models it ties with or outperforms.
  5. [References] Reference [19] appears to be a garbled citation: 'Dgm: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations' is not a VQA dataset and seems unrelated to the surrounding sentence about VQA datasets. Please verify and replace this reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark results are direct measurements on an independently constructed dataset; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: four VQA models answer classroom behavior questions at 'promising' levels, supported by accuracy, BERTScore, and ROUGE-L measurements in Tables 1-3. There is no equation connecting the reported metrics back to the dataset or model definitions; the metrics are direct matches against ground-truth answers. The dataset is constructed from real classroom videos before model evaluation, and the models are externally defined systems, so no fitted parameter is renamed as prediction. The self-citations [1] and [7] only contextualize prior workshop participation, and no load-bearing claim is justified by those citations. A separate validity concern exists: Qwen3 and NVILA were tested via public web chat interfaces rather than controlled local inference, but that concerns measurement fidelity, not circularity, and it does not make the reported numbers equivalent to the inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about dataset representativeness, the fidelity of API-based evaluation, and the adequacy of the chosen metrics.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The custom-built question set and video clips adequately represent classroom activity monitoring.
    Section 3.2 constructs questions adapted from existing VQA surveys; the representativeness of these questions for real classroom monitoring is assumed, not validated against teacher needs.
  • ad hoc to paper Qwen3 and NVILA web interfaces provide faithful, reproducible outputs of the underlying models.
    Section 3.3.1 uses chat.qwen.ai and vila.hanlab.ai; there is no control over model version, decoding parameters, or prompt formatting.
  • domain assumption Exact-match accuracy and BERTScore with human annotations are sufficient measures of VQA quality for this task.
    Section 3.3.2 defines metrics but provides no inter-annotator agreement or validation that these metrics align with educational usefulness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Application of Visual Question Answering (VQA) for Classroom Activity Monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWEBWBQE

@misc{pith2026250722369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Application of Visual Question Answering (VQA) for Classroom Activity Monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWEBWBQE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22369}
}
read the original abstract

Classroom behavior monitoring is a critical aspect of educational research, with significant implications for student engagement and learning outcomes. Recent advancements in Visual Question Answering (VQA) models offer promising tools for automatically analyzing complex classroom interactions from video recordings. In this paper, we investigate the applicability of several state-of-the-art open-source VQA models, including LLaMA2, LLaMA3, QWEN3, and NVILA, in the context of classroom behavior analysis. To facilitate rigorous evaluation, we introduce our BAV-Classroom-VQA dataset derived from real-world classroom video recordings at the Banking Academy of Vietnam. We present the methodology for data collection, annotation, and benchmark the performance of the selected VQA models on this dataset. Our initial experimental results demonstrate that all four models achieve promising performance levels in answering behavior-related visual questions, showcasing their potential in future classroom analytics and intervention systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22369 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VQA Model Evaluation Framework of classroom status. This not only assists teachers in monitoring classroom activities more effectively but also generates valuable data to support the improvement of teaching methodologies. In this paper, we survey existing Visual Question Answering (VQA) models, including VideoLLaMA2, VideoLLaMA3, NVILA, and QWEN and assess their potential for application in classroom video analysis.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BAV-Classroom-VQA Dataset Structure shared through public platforms. Access to the data was strictly limited to authorized research team members. 3.2 Dataset construction As mentioned earlier, Video Question Answering (VQA) models have been extensively studied and applied across various domains to answer questions based on visual content from videos. How￾ever, after reviewing related studies, we found that no open d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A chatgpt-based approach for questions generation in higher education,

    S. T. Vu, H. T. Truong, O. T. Do, T. A. Le, and T. T. Mai, “A chatgpt-based approach for questions generation in higher education, ” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on AI-Powered Q&A Systems for Multimedia , ser. AIQAM ’24. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, p. 13–18. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3643479.3662056

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Using learning analytics to assess students’ behavior in open-ended programming tasks,

    P. Blikstein, “Using learning analytics to assess students’ behavior in open-ended programming tasks, ” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge , ser. LAK ’11. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2011, p. 110–116. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2090116.2090132

    work page arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Ta-student vqa: Multi-agents training by self-questioning,

    P. Xiong and Y. Wu, “Ta-student vqa: Multi-agents training by self-questioning, ” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020, pp. 10 062–10 072

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Bozkir, C

    E. Bozkir, C. Kosel, T. Seidel, and E. Kasneci, in Automated Visual Attention Detection using Mobile Eye Tracking in Behavioral Classroom Studies , 05 2025, p. 1

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    What is visual question answering (vqa)?

    J. Solawetz, “What is visual question answering (vqa)?” https://blog.roboflow. com/what-is-vqa/, 2023, accessed: 2025-07-16

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    From image to language: A critical analysis of visual question answering (vqa) approaches, challenges, and opportunities,

    M. F. Ishmam, M. S. H. Shovon, M. Mridha, and N. Dey, “From image to language: A critical analysis of visual question answering (vqa) approaches, challenges, and opportunities, ”Information Fusion, vol. 106, p. 102270, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102270

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Aiqam’25: The 2nd acm workshop on ai-powered ques- tion answering systems for multimedia,

    T. T. Mai, A. Tran, Q.-L. Tran, A. Nguyen, H. D. Nguyen, T. Quan, D.-T. Dang- Nguyen, and C. Gurrin, “Aiqam’25: The 2nd acm workshop on ai-powered ques- tion answering systems for multimedia, ” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM In- ternational Conference on Multimedia (MM ’25) . Association for Computing Machinery, 10 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Student Classroom Behavior Detection based on YOLOv7-BRA and Multi-Model Fusion

    F. Yang, T. Wang, and X. Wang, “Student classroom behavior detection based on yolov7-bra and multi-model fusion, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07825

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Yolo-cbd: Classroom behavior detection method based on behavior feature extraction and aggregation,

    S. Peng, X. Zhang, L. Zhou, and P. Wang, “Yolo-cbd: Classroom behavior detection method based on behavior feature extraction and aggregation, ”Sensors, vol. 25, no. 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/10/3073

    2025

  2. [10]

    Student behavior detection in the classroom based on improved yolov8,

    H. Chen, G. Zhou, and H. Jiang, “Student behavior detection in the classroom based on improved yolov8, ”Sensors, vol. 23, p. 8385, 10 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Scb-dataset3: A benchmark for detecting student classroom behavior,

    F. Yang and T. Wang, “Scb-dataset3: A benchmark for detecting student classroom behavior, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02522

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Context understanding in computer vision: A survey,

    X. Wang and Z. Zhu, “Context understanding in computer vision: A survey, ” Computer Vision and Image Understanding , vol. 229, p. 103646, Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2023.103646

    2023

  5. [13]

    Multimodal research in vision and language: A review of current and emerging trends,

    S. Uppal, S. Bhagat, D. Hazarika, N. Majumder, S. Poria, R. Zimmermann, and A. Zadeh, “Multimodal research in vision and language: A review of current and emerging trends, ”Information Fusion, vol. 77, pp. 149–171, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Videollama 2: Advancing spatial-temporal modeling and audio understanding in video-llms,

    Z. Cheng, S. Leng, H. Zhang, Y. Xin, X. Li, G. Chen, Y. Zhu, W. Zhang, Z. Luo, D. Zhao, and L. Bing, “Videollama 2: Advancing spatial-temporal modeling and audio understanding in video-llms, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07476

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Videollama 3: Frontier multimodal foundation models for image and video understanding,

    B. Zhang, K. Li, Z. Cheng, Z. Hu, Y. Yuan, G. Chen, S. Leng, Y. Jiang, H. Zhang, X. Li, P. Jin, W. Zhang, F. Wang, L. Bing, and D. Zhao, “Videollama 3: Frontier multimodal foundation models for image and video understanding, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nvila: Efficient frontier visual language models,

    Z. Liu, L. Zhu, B. Shi, Z. Zhang, Y. Lou, S. Yang, H. Xi, S. Cao, Y. Gu, D. Li, X. Li, Y. Fang, Y. Chen, C.-Y. Hsieh, D.-A. Huang, A.-C. Cheng, V. Nath, J. Hu, S. Liu, R. Krishna, D. Xu, X. Wang, P. Molchanov, J. Kautz, H. Yin, S. Han, and Y. Lu, “Nvila: Efficient frontier vis...

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Qwen3 technical report,

    A. Yang and partner, “Qwen3 technical report, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Robust visual question answering: Datasets, methods, and future challenges,

    J. Ma, P. Wang, D. Kong, Z. Wang, J. Liu, H. Pei, and J. Zhao, “Robust visual question answering: Datasets, methods, and future challenges, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11471

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dgm: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations,

    J. Sirignano and K. Spiliopoulos, “Dgm: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations, ” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 375, p. 1339–1364, Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.08. 029

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Tgif-qa: Toward spatio- temporal reasoning in visual question answering,

    Y. Jang, Y. Song, Y. Yu, Y. Kim, and G. Kim, “Tgif-qa: Toward spatio- temporal reasoning in visual question answering, ” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04497

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Tgif-qa: Toward spatio-temporal reasoning in visual question answering,

    ——, “Tgif-qa: Toward spatio-temporal reasoning in visual question answering, ” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2017, pp. 1359–1367

    2017

  14. [22]

    Just ask: Learning to answer questions from millions of narrated videos,

    A. Yang, A. Miech, J. Sivic, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Just ask: Learning to answer questions from millions of narrated videos, ” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00451

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering,

    Z. Yu, D. Xu, J. Yu, T. Yu, Z. Zhao, Y. Zhuang, and D. Tao, “Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering, ” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02467

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Video question answering: Datasets, algorithms and challenges,

    Y. Zhong, J. Xiao, W. Ji, Y. Li, W. Deng, and T.-S. Chua, “Video question answering: Datasets, algorithms and challenges, ” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01225

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Visual question answering: from early developments to recent advances – a survey,

    N. D. Huynh, M. R. Bouadjenek, S. Aryal, I. Razzak, and H. Hacid, “Visual question answering: from early developments to recent advances – a survey, ”

  18. [26]

    ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,

    C. Lin, “ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries, ” in Text Summarization Branches Out . Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2004, pp. 74–81. [Online]. Available: https: //aclanthology.org/W04-1013/

    2004

  19. [27]

    A detailed comparative analysis of automatic neural metrics for machine translation: Bleurt & bertscore,

    A. Mukherjee, V. Hassija, V. Chamola, and K. K. Gupta, “A detailed comparative analysis of automatic neural metrics for machine translation: Bleurt & bertscore, ” IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society , vol. 6, pp. 658–668, 2025

    2025

  20. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03939

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03939

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.