Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Talking-to-Build: How LLM-Assisted Interface Shapes Player Performance and Experience in Minecraft

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 An LLM-assisted chat interface for Minecraft significantly improves self-reported game experience over command-based input, with part of the gain running through perceived usability.

desk verdict A decent small user study whose experience finding is credible, but the abstract's performance claim is unsupported and needs to be fixed before this is publishable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20300 v2 pith:7GQFTXJC submitted 2025-07-27 cs.HC cs.MM

Xin Sun , Lei Wang , Yue Li , Jie Li , Massimo Poesio , Julian Frommel , Koen Hinriks , Jiahuan Pei This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.MM
keywords naturallanguageinterfacemultimodallargemodelsMinecraftgameexperienceusabilitytaskcomplexityhuman-AIcollaboration
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

The paper sets out to show that, in a sandbox game like Minecraft, a natural-language interface powered by a large language model gives players a better experience than the traditional typed-command interface. In a within-subjects study with 30 players, the LLM-assisted interface scored significantly higher on self-reported game experience (M = 3.36 vs. 3.00, p = .009), and a mediation analysis shows that part of that benefit runs through perceived usability. The paper also finds that task complexity works against both interfaces but most sharply against the LLM: experience and usability drop noticeably from simple to complex multi-step tasks. If these results hold, game interfaces can move from rigid command syntax to conversational co-builder agents, though designers would still face the challenge of making such agents predictable and transparent under complex requests.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the LLM co-builder loop: player chat is intercepted by the Project Malmo agent, sent to GPT-4-turbo under a chain-of-thought prompt that sequences reflection, planning, instruction generation, self-check, and a final comment, and then executed back into the Minecraft world, with up to five automatic retries when the model emits invalid commands. This loop is the independent variable of the study, and the measures—GEQ, UMUX-LITE, weighted preference rankings, and interaction logs—are all attached to it. The mediation model (interface type → perceived usability → game experience) is the statistical core that separates the direct effect of the interface from the indirect path through usability.

What would settle it

A re-analysis that scores the actual builds—whether the requested structure exists with the intended dimensions and materials, and how many commands and seconds were needed to finish—would settle the performance claim: if command-based sessions produce structurally correct builds at least as often and faster, the claim that the LLM interface significantly improves performance would fall.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the authors would state it to a fair reader, is that an LLM-assisted interface acting as a co-builder improves player performance, engagement, and overall game experience relative to a command-based interface in Minecraft. The evidence comes from a mixed-methods, within-subjects study (N = 30) in which each player completed three simple and three complex tasks with each interface, with order counterbalanced. The LLM interface produced the higher Game Experience Questionnaire ratings (3.36 vs. 3.00, p = .009) and a significant main effect in a repeated-measures ANOVA, while usability was numerically higher but not significantly so overall (p = .082). A mediation analysis then showed that usability significantly partially mediates the interface-to-experience path, and log data show more commands per session, longer sessions, and shorter input intervals in the conversational condition, which the paper interprets as richer engagement and interaction diversity.

Load-bearing premise

The study treats self-reported game-experience and usability ratings plus interaction-volume logs (commands per session, session length, input diversity) as evidence of improved player performance, without any direct measure of task completion or build quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result generalizes, sandbox games can lower the entry barrier: players no longer need to memorize command syntax to place blocks, change weather, or summon entities.
  • The mediation finding implies that improving perceived usability is itself a lever on game experience, so interface polish may matter as much as raw model capability.
  • Because task complexity sharply reduces the LLM advantage, the next design target is multi-step reliability—disambiguating instructions like 'build a pool in front of my house' rather than single-step commands.
  • The qualitative responses suggest that natural-language interfaces support creative agency and a feeling of co-creation, extending the appeal beyond task completion.
  • The demonstrated multilingual input and refusal of harmful requests point toward game interfaces that are both more inclusive and better moderated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'performance' language runs ahead of its measurements: no objective build quality or completion-time score was collected, so a direct task-success metric is the natural next experiment and could qualify the headline claim.
  • Longer sessions and higher command counts in the LLM condition may partly reflect GPT-4 latency and the automatic retry loop rather than engagement, so a latency-controlled replication would test whether the experience gain survives equal response times.
  • The mediation result suggests a broader design lesson: any interface that raises perceived usability—including a well-polished command palette with autocomplete—might produce a similar experience lift without an LLM.
  • A promising extension is testing the interface on open-ended creative goals (e.g., 'make my base feel cozy') rather than the pre-scripted build tasks, where the expressiveness advantage is most plausible.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an LLM-assisted Minecraft interface built on Project Malmo and GPT-4-turbo, with chain-of-thought prompting, an iterative retry mechanism, and a command-execution layer, and reports a within-subjects user study (N=30) comparing this interface against a command-based interface on three simple and three complex building tasks. The primary measures are self-reported game experience (modified GEQ) and usability (UMUX-LITE) collected after each task, plus preference rankings and open-ended responses. The paper's central empirical claim is that the LLM-assisted interface significantly improves game experience (M = 3.36 vs 3.00, p = .009 in a post-hoc comparison) and that task complexity significantly affects both experience and usability; a log analysis of commands and session times is used to argue for higher engagement and performance. The abstract and title additionally claim significant improvements in player 'performance,' although no objective task-completion or building-quality metric is reported.

Significance. The study is a reasonable and useful empirical contribution to HCI for game interfaces if its claims are restricted to what the data actually support. Strengths include a G*Power-based sample size justification (N=30), a counterbalanced within-subjects design, a transparent system architecture description, and a statistically significant effect on self-reported game experience. The mixed-methods analysis and the inclusion of interaction logs are also valuable. However, the paper's headline claim of performance improvement is not supported by any objective performance measure; the log metrics used as proxies in §4.3 are confounded with the system's own latency and retry behavior described in §2.2.3 and §5.4. If revised to drop or re-evidence the performance claim and to address the multiple-comparison issues, the paper would be suitable for publication at a venue like ICMI.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §4.3 / Table 3] The abstract and title claim that the LLM-assisted interface 'significantly improves player performance,' but the manuscript contains no objective performance measure. The research questions in §1 ask about experience and usability; §3.3 lists only self-report instruments (GEQ, UMUX-LITE) plus ranking data, and the additional log analysis in §4.3 reports commands per session, session length, and input diversity—not task completion rates, time-to-correct-completion, or any evaluation of the built structures. Because §2.2.3 implements an automatic retry loop of up to five attempts and §5.4 reports that GPT-4 latency caused participants to 'retry prompts,' higher command counts and longer sessions can simply reflect retries and waiting, not improved performance. The performance claim and the performance wording in the title and abstract must be removed or supported by objective completion metrics.
  2. [§4.1.1] The post-hoc comparison showing a significant LLM-vs-command difference in game experience (p = .009) is conducted after an omnibus ANOVA with four conditions (p = .002) without any correction for multiple pairwise comparisons. In the same section, the overall usability difference between interfaces is not significant (p = .082), yet the abstract still claims usability is significantly improved. The authors should report adjusted p-values (e.g., Bonferroni or Holm) for the pairwise tests, and should restrict the usability claim to the simple-task contrast (p = .013) or soften it accordingly.
  3. [§4.1.3] The mediation analysis reports significant negative coefficients for the effect of interface type on game experience (coef = -0.360, p < .001) and on usability (coef = -0.325, p = .040) while concluding that the LLM-assisted interface enhances both. The coding of the binary interface-type variable is not stated, so the negative signs are uninterpretable as reported. The analysis also appears to pool multiple task-level observations per participant without accounting for within-subjects dependence; the paper should clarify the unit of analysis and, if task-level observations are used, apply appropriate mixed-effects or cluster-robust methods.
  4. [§4.3 / Table 3] The derived metric 'Seconds per User Input' (59.93 vs 83.90) is used to claim that users 'interacted at a faster pace,' but it is defined as session time divided by number of inputs, so it decreases mechanically when the number of inputs increases. Since the retry loop in §2.2.3 generates additional inputs without user intent, and §5.4 documents lag-induced retries, this metric cannot distinguish a faster user pace from extra system-generated retries. The log analysis also reports no significance tests, so the observed differences may be within sampling noise. This interpretation should be removed or replaced with a direct measure of user-initiated input rate or task-completion time.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.4] The in-text reference 'as shown in Table??' in the multilingual compatibility paragraph is an unresolved placeholder; it should be Table 5.
  2. [§4.4 / Table 5] The Dutch-flag example generates three vertical stripes (orange, white, red) instead of the horizontal orange-white-blue of the Dutch flag; if the system output is as shown, the 'high fidelity' characterization should be corrected or explained, and the example should be checked for factual accuracy.
  3. [§2.2.2] The sentence 'we improve both the interpretability of the responses' is incomplete; it likely intends 'we improve both the interpretability and reliability of the responses.'
  4. [§3.5] The formula for Weighted Rank is ambiguous as printed; clarify the denominator and the ordering convention (rank 1 = least preferred).
  5. [§4.1.2] Report 'p = .000' as 'p < .001' and provide effect size definitions (the paper uses 'effect' without specifying that it is partial eta-squared), with confidence intervals where possible.
  6. [§6] There are typographical errors in the Related Work section, including 'phasizes' for 'emphasizes' in the first sentence and 'an ANOV A' in the Figure 4 caption text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reported comparisons are measured outcomes from a user study, not quantities constructed from the paper's own assumptions.

full rationale

This is an empirical user study, not a derivation chain. The central results (GEQ game-experience ratings, UMUX-LITE usability ratings, preference rankings, and log counts) are collected from participants or system logs, and the repeated-measures ANOVA contrasts are computed from those measurements; no parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction. The self-citations in the paper ([5], [26], [28], [33], [34]) support background statements about LLM capabilities and are not load-bearing for the statistical conclusions. The paper's own limitation passage (Section 5.4) states that GPT-4 introduced noticeable delays and that participants needed to retry prompts, which undermines the Section 4.3 interpretation of more commands and longer sessions as 'higher engagement' and 'faster pace'; that is a construct-validity and missing-support problem for the abstract's 'performance' wording, not a circularity, because the log metrics are not defined in terms of the conclusions and the experience ratings are independent self-reports. No equation in the paper reduces the claimed outcome to an input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to force the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on measurement validity and statistical assumptions rather than on fitted parameters. No free parameters are introduced; the performance claim depends on the unstated proxy assumption that log metrics and self-reports capture performance.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The modified 5-point GEQ and UMUX-LITE items validly measure game experience and usability as interval scales.
    Invoked in §3.3; self-report Likert items are treated as continuous for ANOVA. The paper does not report validation of the modified scales.
  • standard math Repeated-measures ANOVA assumptions (normality, sphericity, homogeneity) hold for the within-subject ratings.
    §3.5 mentions Shapiro-Wilk and Bartlett tests but does not report their outcomes; sphericity is not addressed.
  • domain assumption GPT-4-turbo's command generation is sufficiently stable and correct across participants for the interface comparison to reflect interface differences rather than model randomness.
    §2.2 describes iterative retries and fallbacks; §5.4 acknowledges latency and retries, so model reliability is part of the treatment, not controlled.
  • domain assumption The simple versus complex task distinction reflects the intended complexity manipulation.
    §3.2 classifies tasks by number of steps, but no manipulation check or pilot data is reported; complexity effects could be confounded by task content.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Talking-to-Build: How LLM-Assisted Interface Shapes Player Performance and Experience in Minecraft." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GQFTXJC

@misc{pith2026250720300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Talking-to-Build: How LLM-Assisted Interface Shapes Player Performance and Experience in Minecraft},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GQFTXJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20300}
}
read the original abstract

With large language models (LLMs) on the rise, in-game interactions are shifting from rigid commands to natural conversations. However, the impacts of LLMs on player performance and game experience remain underexplored. This work explores LLM's role as a co-builder during gameplay, examining its impact on task performance, usability, and player experience. Using Minecraft as a sandbox, we present an LLM-assisted interface that engages players through natural language, aiming to facilitate creativity and simplify complex gaming commands. We conducted a mixed-methods study with 30 participants, comparing LLM-assisted and command-based interfaces across simple and complex game tasks. Quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal that the LLM-assisted interface significantly improves player performance, engagement, and overall game experience. Additionally, task complexity has a notable effect on player performance and experience across both interfaces. Our findings highlight the potential of LLM-assisted interfaces to revolutionize virtual experiences, emphasizing the importance of balancing intuitiveness with predictability, transparency, and user agency in AI-driven, multimodal gaming environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic comparison between LLM-assisted and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Architecture 1https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-1112-released 2https://github.com/microsoft/malmo 2.1 Conversational interface and interaction Players interact with the system by issuing natural language in￾structions through Minecraft’s built-in chat interface. These in￾puts are intercepted in real-time by the Malmo agent, which for￾wards them to the language model for semantic interpretation… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall procedure of the study. dimensions: free expression, controllability, and preference. Each rank was assigned a weight (rank 1 = least preferred, rank 4 = most preferred). Besides, participants were required to answer two open-ended questions: 1) Advantages and disadvantages of each interface. 2) Suggestions for improving the interfaces in Minecraft. 3.4 Participants and study procedure A power analysis using… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of ANOVA analysis (* 𝑝 < 0.05, ** 𝑝 < 0.01). For usability, LLM-Simple achieved the highest score (M = 3.12), followed by LLM-Complex (M = 2.58), Command-Simple (M = 2.58), and Command-Complex (M = 2.47). As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Weighted scores of 4 conditions on 3 dimensions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Participant demographics and prior experience. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hossein Arsham and Miodrag Lovric. 2011. Bartlett’s Test. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 87–88. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_132

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_132 2011

  2. [2]

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. 2023. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Chris Callison-Burch, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Lara J Martin, Daphne Ippolito, Suma Bailis, and David Reitter. 2022. Dungeons and Dragons as a Dialog Challenge for Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 9379–9393

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Anthony Costarelli, Mat Allen, Roman Hauksson, Grace Sodunke, Suhas Har- iharan, Carlson Cheng, Wenjie Li, Joshua Clymer, and Arjun Yadav. 2024. Gamebench: Evaluating strategic reasoning abilities of llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06613 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Wentao Deng, Jiahuan Pei, Zhaochun Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Pengjie Ren. 2023. Intent-calibrated self-training for answer selection in open-domain dialogues. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 11 (2023), 1232–1249

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Alena Denisova, Paul Cairns, Christian Guckelsberger, and David Zendle. 2020. Measuring perceived challenge in digital games: Development & validation of the challenge originating from recent gameplay interaction scale (CORGIS). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 137 (2020), 102383

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Satu Elo and Helvi Kyngäs. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process.Journal of advanced nursing 62, 1 (2008), 107–115

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Linxi Fan, Guanzhi Wang, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Yuncong Yang, Haoyi Zhu, Andrew Tang, De-An Huang, Yuke Zhu, and Anima Anandkumar. 2022. Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 18343–18362

    2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 2 (May 2007), 175–191

    2007

  2. [10]

    LLM Multi-Agent Framework. 2024. VillagerBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Collaboration in Minecraft. (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Koya Kudo Ian Frank. 2024. An LLM Chatbot in Minecraft with Educational Applications. (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ellen R Girden. 1992. ANOV A: Repeated measures. Number 84. Sage

    1992

  5. [13]

    ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. 2023. ATLAS.Ti. https://atlasti. com

    2023

  6. [14]

    Jonathan Gray, Kavya Srinet, Yacine Jernite, Haonan Yu, Zhuoyuan Chen, Demi Guo, Siddharth Goyal, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Arthur Szlam. 2019. Craftas- sist: A framework for dialogue-enabled interactive agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08584 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shiying Hu, Zengrong Huang, Chengpeng Hu, and Jialin Liu. 2024. 3d building generation in minecraft via large language models. In 2024 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). IEEE, 1–4

    2024

  8. [16]

    Shuo Huang, Muhammad Umair Nasir, Steven James, and Julian Togelius. 2025. Word2Minecraft: Generating 3D Game Levels through Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16536 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Takuma Ichikawa and Ryuichiro Higashinaka. 2023. Modeling Collaborative Dialogue in Minecraft with Action-Utterance Model. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Confer- ence of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Assoc...

    2023

  10. [18]

    IJsselsteijn, Y.A.W

    W.A. IJsselsteijn, Y.A.W. de Kort, and K. Poels. 2013.The Game Experience Ques- tionnaire. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

    2013

  11. [19]

    Prashant Jayannavar, Anjali Narayan-Chen, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2020. Learn- ing to execute instructions in a Minecraft dialogue. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics . 2589–2602

    2020

  12. [20]

    Matthew Johnson, Katja Hofmann, Tim Hutton, and David Bignell. 2016. The Malmo Platform for Artificial Intelligence Experimentation.. In Ijcai, Vol. 16. 4246–4247

    2016

  13. [21]

    Julia Kiseleva, Ziming Li, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Shrestha Mohanty, Maartje ter Hoeve, Mikhail Burtsev, Alexey Skrynnik, Artem Zholus, Aleksandr Panov, Kavya Srinet, et al. 2022. Interactive grounded language understanding in a collaborative environment: Iglu 2021. In NeurIPS 2...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Chalamalasetti Kranti, Sherzod Hakimov, and David Schlangen. 2024. Retrieval- augmented code generation for situated action generation: A case study on minecraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17553 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lewis, Brian S

    James R. Lewis, Brian S. Utesch, and Deborah E. Maher. 2013. UMUX-LITE: when there’s no time for the SUS. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2099–2102....

    2013

  16. [24]

    Hao Li, Xue Yang, Zhaokai Wang, Xizhou Zhu, Jie Zhou, Yu Qiao, Xiaogang Wang, Hongsheng Li, Lewei Lu, and Jifeng Dai. 2024. Auto mc-reward: Automated dense reward design with large language models for minecraft. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and ...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Shunyu Liu, Yaoru Li, Kongcheng Zhang, Zhenyu Cui, Wenkai Fang, Yuxuan Zheng, Tongya Zheng, and Mingli Song. 2024. Odyssey: Empowering Minecraft Agents with Open-World Skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15325 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yuanxing Liu, Jiahuan Pei, Wei-Nan Zhang, Ming Li, Wanxiang Che, and Maarten De Rijke. 2025. Augmentation with Neighboring Information for Conversational Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 43, 3 (2025), 1–49

    2025

  19. [27]

    Zhihan Lv, Fabio Poiesi, Qi Dong, Jaime Lloret, and Houbing Song. 2022. Deep learning for intelligent human–computer interaction. Applied Sciences 12, 22 (2022), 11457

    2022

  20. [28]

    Chris Madge and Massimo Poesio. 2024. A LLM Benchmark based on the Minecraft Builder Dialog Agent Task. In Proceedings of the 28th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue . ICMI ’25, October 13–17, 2025, Canberra, ACT, Australia Xin Sun, Lei Wang, Yue Li, Jie Li, ...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Barbara Mirel. 2014. Dynamic usability: Designing usefulness into systems for complex tasks. In Content and Complexity. Routledge, 233–261

    2014

  22. [30]

    Shrestha Mohanty, Negar Arabzadeh, Milagro Teruel, Yuxuan Sun, Artem Zholus, Alexey Skrynnik, Mikhail Burtsev, Kavya Srinet, Aleksandr Panov, Arthur Szlam, et al. 2022. Collecting interactive multi-modal datasets for grounded language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.0...

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anjali Narayan-Chen, Prashant Jayannavar, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2019. Col- laborative dialogue in Minecraft. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 5405–5415

    2019

  24. [32]

    Haruna Ogawa, Hitoshi Nishikawa, Takenobu Tokunaga, and Hikaru Yokono

  25. [33]

    Jiahuan Pei, Irene Viola, Haochen Huang, Junxiao Wang, Moonisa Ahsan, Fanghua Ye, Jiang Yiming, Yao Sai, Di Wang, Zhumin Chen, et al . 2024. Au- tonomous Workflow for Multimodal Fine-Grained Training Assistants Towards Mixed Reality. In Findings of the Association for Computat...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jiahuan Pei, Guojun Yan, Maarten De Rijke, and Pengjie Ren. 2024. Mixture-of- Languages Routing for Multilingual Dialogues. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 42, 6 (2024), 1–33

    2024

  27. [35]

    Sudha Rao, Weijia Xu, Michael Xu, Jorge Leandro, Ken Lobb, Gabriel DesGarennes, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2024. Collaborative Quest Completion with LLM- driven Non-Player Characters in Minecraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03460 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ferran Sanchez Llado. 2024. Controlling Agents Behaviours through LLMs

    2024

  29. [37]

    S. S. SHAPIRO and M. B. WILK. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 3-4 (dec 1965), 591–611. doi:10.1093/biomet/ 52.3-4.591

    1965 doi

  30. [38]

    Andrew F Siegel. 2016. Practical business statistics. Academic Press

    2016

  31. [39]

    Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al . 2022. Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transacti...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Arthur Szlam, Jonathan Gray, Kavya Srinet, Yacine Jernite, Armand Joulin, Gabriel Synnaeve, Douwe Kiela, Haonan Yu, Zhuoyuan Chen, Siddharth Goyal, et al. 2019. Why build an assistant in minecraft? arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.09273 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jack Urbanek, Angela Fan, Siddharth Karamcheti, Saachi Jain, Samuel Humeau, Emily Dinan, Tim Rocktäschel, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston

  34. [42]

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Guanzhou Chen, Anji Liu, Xiaojian Shawn Ma, and Yitao Liang. 2023. Describe, explain, plan and select: interactive planning with llms enables open-world multi-task agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 34153–34189

    2023

  36. [44]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  37. [45]

    Jules White, Quchen Fu, Sam Hays, Michael Sandborn, Carlos Olea, Henry Gilbert, Ashraf Elnashar, Jesse Spencer-Smith, and Douglas C Schmidt. 2023. A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yue Wu, Xuan Tang, Tom Mitchell, and Yuanzhi Li. 2024. SmartPlay: A Benchmark for LLMs as Intelligent Agents. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  39. [47]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Eray Yapağcı, Yavuz Alp Sencer Öztürk, and Eray Tüzün. 2025. BugCraft: End- to-End Crash Bug Reproduction Using LLM Agents in Minecraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20036 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Xizhou Zhu, Yuntao Chen, Hao Tian, Chenxin Tao, Weijie Su, Chenyu Yang, Gao Huang, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Xiaogang Wang, et al. [n. d.]. Ghost in the Minecraft: Hierarchical Agents for Minecraft via Large Language Models with Text-based Knowledge and Memory. ([n. d.])

  42. [50]

    Xizhou Zhu, Yuntao Chen, Hao Tian, Chenxin Tao, Weijie Su, Chenyu Yang, Gao Huang, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Xiaogang Wang, et al. 2023. Ghost in the minecraft: Generally capable agents for open-world environments via large language models with text-based knowledge and memory. arXiv p...

    2023 arXiv

  43. [2019]

    InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJCNLP)

    Learning to Speak and Act in a Fantasy Text Adventure Game. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJCNLP). 673–683

    2019

  44. [2020]

    In Pro- ceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference

    Gamification platform for collecting task-oriented dialogue data. In Pro- ceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. 7084–7093

Pith tools

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