Papers › MineAnyBuild: Benchmarking Spatial Planning for Open-world AI Agents

MineAnyBuild: Benchmarking Spatial Planning for Open-world AI Agents

26 May 2025arXiv:2505.20148archive 2025-07-28

Ziming Wei, Bingqian Lin, Zijian Jiao, Yunshuang Nie, Liang Ma, Yuecheng Liu, Yuzheng Zhuang, Xiaodan Liang

Spatial Planning is a crucial part in the field of spatial intelligence, which requires the understanding and planning about object arrangements in space perspective. AI agents with the spatial planning ability can better adapt to various real-world applications, including robotic manipulation, automatic assembly, urban planning etc. Recent works have attempted to construct benchmarks for evaluating the spatial intelligence of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). Nevertheless, these benchmarks primarily focus on spatial reasoning based on typical Visual Question-Answering (VQA) forms, which suffers from the gap between abstract spatial understanding and concrete task execution. In this work, we take a step further to build a comprehensive benchmark called MineAnyBuild, aiming to evaluate the spatial planning ability of open-world AI agents in the Minecraft game. Specifically, MineAnyBuild requires an agent to generate executable architecture building plans based on the given multi-modal human instructions. It involves 4,000 curated spatial planning tasks and also provides a paradigm for infinitely expandable data collection by utilizing rich player-generated content. MineAnyBuild evaluates spatial planning through four core supporting dimensions: spatial understanding, spatial reasoning, creativity, and spatial commonsense. Based on MineAnyBuild, we perform a comprehensive evaluation for existing MLLM-based agents, revealing the severe limitations but enormous potential in their spatial planning abilities. We believe our MineAnyBuild will open new avenues for the evaluation of spatial intelligence and help promote further development for open-world AI agents capable of spatial planning.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2505.20148")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 0 repositories linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.

By repository: 2 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

mineanybuild/mineanybuild officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · our draft was wrong
1ran · fixture could not drive it

Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

dynamic_preprocess identical code first harvested elsewhere ran · our draft was wrong licence of this copy not recorded · 6dc77bb22fb9d660 · report
find_closest_aspect_ratio identical code first harvested elsewhere ran · fixture could not drive it licence of this copy not recorded · bd77f5f8067f18e9 · report

Tasks

BenchmarkingMinecraftQuestion AnsweringSpatial ReasoningVisual Question AnsweringVisual Question Answering (VQA)

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Focus

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections