What did each of these open interactive world models actually evaluate (metrics, baselines, raters, test sets), and what do the evaluations not support?
The evaluations are author-run and use different protocols. Matrix-Game 1.0 uses its own GameWorld Score on Minecraft plus a double-blind human comparison against Oasis and MineWorld. Matrix-Game 2.0 reports the same score against YUME on wild scenes and is lower on motion smoothness, object consistency and scenario consistency. Matrix-Game 4.0's report and card give latency and throughput but no image-quality metric, and the card says it claims no benchmark. Hunyuan-GameCraft reports FVD, relative pose error, image quality and a 30-evaluator ranking on 150 images and 12 action signals, compared with camera-control baselines and Matrix-Game 1.0. LingBot-World 1 uses VBench on 100 generated videos over 30 s; LingBot 2.0 relies on comparison figures and an hour-long session. None measures persistence or revisit consistency quantitatively.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18701v1",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
},
{
"url": "https://huggingface.co/Skywork/Matrix-Game",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13009v2",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
},
{
"url": "https://huggingface.co/Skywork/Matrix-Game-4.0",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17201v1",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20540v1",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07534v1",
"note": "work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] The evaluations are author-run and use different protocols. Matrix-Game 1.0 uses its own GameWorld Score on Minecraft plus a double-blind human comparison against Oasis and MineWorld. Matrix-Game 2.0 reports the same score against YUME on wild scenes and is lower on motion smoothness, object consistency and scenario consistency. Matrix-Game 4.0's report and card give latency and throughput but no image-quality metric, and the card says it claims no benchmark. Hunyuan-GameCraft reports FVD, relative pose error, image quality and a 30-evaluator ranking on 150 images and 12 action signals, compared with camera-control baselines and Matrix-Game 1.0. LingBot-World 1 uses VBench on 100 generated videos over 30 s; LingBot 2.0 relies on comparison figures and an hour-long session. None measures persistence or revisit consistency quantitatively. · locator: work/mg2-arxiv-v2.html Table 2 (wild scenes) and abstract; Matrix-Game 4.0 card Limitations; GameCraft Table 2 source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |
Linked records
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17201v1
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18701v1
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13009v2
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20540v1
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07534v1
- cites → https://huggingface.co/Skywork/Matrix-Game
- cites → https://huggingface.co/Skywork/Matrix-Game-4.0