When one model is scored under several action-following protocols (Oasis and Matrix-Game across MineWorld, Matrix-Game, GameCraft and Yume papers), do the scores agree, and are the protocols comparable?
They do not agree. Oasis keyboard accuracy is 0.77 in Matrix-Game 1.0, 0.73 in Matrix-Game 2.0, and F1 0.41 (precision 0.49, recall 0.44) in MineWorld's own table. Matrix-Game 1.0 scores 0.95 keyboard/0.95 mouse in its own paper, yet in GameCraft's tests (150 mixed images, 12 actions) it has the highest translation error and the second-highest rotation error of five methods (RPE trans 0.18, rot 0.35 versus 0.08 and 0.20 for GameCraft) and the lowest user-study action-accuracy rank (1.63 of 5), and in Yume-Bench its human-rated instruction following is 0.271 against Yume's 0.657. The sources differ in test set, domain, estimator and rater, so these are four separate protocols, not four measurements of one quantity. The differences are consistent with domain shift (Yume says Matrix-Game struggles to generalise to real-world scenes) but no source isolates the cause.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18701v1",
"note": "Table 2 rows 860-862; table S5.T1 (tags stripped); table S5.T2 (tags stripped)"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13009v2",
"note": "Table 2 rows 860-862; table S5.T1 (tags stripped); table S5.T2 (tags stripped)"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08388v1",
"note": "Table 2 rows 860-862; table S5.T1 (tags stripped); table S5.T2 (tags stripped)"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17201v1",
"note": "Table 2 rows 860-862; table S5.T1 (tags stripped); table S5.T2 (tags stripped)"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17744v1",
"note": "Table 2 rows 860-862; table S5.T1 (tags stripped); table S5.T2 (tags stripped)"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] They do not agree. Oasis keyboard accuracy is 0.77 in Matrix-Game 1.0, 0.73 in Matrix-Game 2.0, and F1 0.41 (precision 0.49, recall 0.44) in MineWorld's own table. Matrix-Game 1.0 scores 0.95 keyboard/0.95 mouse in its own paper, yet in GameCraft's tests (150 mixed images, 12 actions) it has the highest translation error and the second-highest rotation error of five methods (RPE trans 0.18, rot 0.35 versus 0.08 and 0.20 for GameCraft) and the lowest user-study action-accuracy rank (1.63 of 5), and in Yume-Bench its human-rated instruction following is 0.271 against Yume's 0.657. The sources differ in test set, domain, estimator and rater, so these are four separate protocols, not four measurements of one quantity. The differences are consistent with domain shift (Yume says Matrix-Game struggles to generalise to real-world scenes) but no source isolates the cause. · locator: Table 2 rows 860-862; table S5.T1 (tags stripped); table S5.T2 (tags stripped) 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. |