Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

A team of Gemini 4 Argon agents beats Minecraft

Maxence Faldor, Satinder Singh, Roberta Raileanu

Published

Oct 15, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 15, 2026

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.

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

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

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

Main weakness

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

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

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

Abstract

We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon. Each agent controlled a player via an open-source library called Mineflayer and coordinated with its teammates through in-game chat and shared memory. No one assigned roles or wrote game logic. The agents planned, wrote, and debugged every program themselves. Researchers could watch the run on a live dashboard and pause or stop it at any time, but they had no cause to intervene. Starting from a randomly generated world on Easy difficulty, the team wrote 2,783 programs and defeated the dragon in 27 hours and 14 minutes, dying 605 times along the way. To our knowledge, this is the first end-to-end autonomous completion of Minecraft by AI agents, achieved using only the standard Mineflayer library without pre-scouted seeds or other game-specific tools written by humans. Winning required the agents to keep a coherent plan across thousands of dependent steps for more than a day. Complex real-world software engineering and enterprise tasks demand the same long-horizon coding and multi-agent coordination. We describe the setup, how the run unfolded, the team's strategies (dividing the work, sharing what they learned, recovering each other's items), and the limits of the result.

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.

"We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon."

Benchmarks and datasets

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

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
Long Horizon, Multi Agent
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon.

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

Key takeaways

  • We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon.
  • Each agent controlled a player via an open-source library called Mineflayer and coordinated with its teammates through in-game chat and shared memory.
  • No one assigned roles or wrote game logic.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • 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

Contribution summary

  • We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon.
  • Each agent controlled a player via an open-source library called Mineflayer and coordinated with its teammates through in-game chat and shared memory.
  • The agents planned, wrote, and debugged every program themselves.

Why it matters for eval

  • We placed four Gemini 4 Argon agents in a sandboxed Minecraft survival world and gave them one goal: defeat the Ender Dragon.
  • Each agent controlled a player via an open-source library called Mineflayer and coordinated with its teammates through in-game chat and shared memory.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.