arXiv AI By Xinyu Che, Yunfei Ge, Shihao Li, Yanchen Liu, Hang Yan, Xinping Lei, Yanghai Wang, Zixuan Dong, Yifan Yao, Qianqian Xie, Letian Zhu, Jiaheng Liu

GameLogicBench: Evaluating Coding Agents on Runtime Game Logic with Tick-Level State Assertions

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Oct 9

TestJack: Should you trust the results in coding benchmarks? Agentic Coding Benchmarks Auditing via Evaluator Evolution

TestJack is a scalable framework that audits large language model (LLM) coding agents by generating new tests for each trial, focusing on prompt requirements that may be violated. It keeps only the tests passed by the ground‑truth patch and re‑examines failures, providing replayable evidence for each confirmed error. In experiments across six model backends and five benchmarks, TestJack found that 34.4% of trials deemed correct actually violated task requirements, reducing the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%.

By Shuangjie Yao, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Simin Chen, Baishakhi Ray, Dawn Song
arXiv AI
Oct 1

A2Z GameSpec-Bench: How Faithfully Can Coding Agents Generate Games from Game Design Specifications?

A2Z GameSpec-Bench introduces a benchmark of 100 long‑form Game Design Documents (GDDs) to evaluate how faithfully coding agents can generate complete games from detailed specifications. The benchmark measures faithfulness by checking that the game satisfies the GDD requirements and preserves the relationships among them, using a dependency‑aware contract and a combination of source‑code inspection and agent‑generated test policies. Evaluations show that current agents struggle to meet interdependent requirements, but requirement‑specific feedback improves GDD fidelity by 10.9% after two revision rounds.

By Seonho Lee, Wonryeol Jeong, Alberto Cereser, Inha Kang, Hyeonjong Kim, Seungmin Kwak, Dongmin Park