The Verifier is the Curriculum: Execution-Gated Self-Distillation for Cross-Family Game Generation
Authors: Chenyu Zhou, Qiliang Jiang, Shuning Wu, Xu Zhou
Organizations: School of Engineering, Institute of Science Tokyo, Japan · College of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, China · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Post-training a code generator against a learned judge can optimize proxy features that raise the score without improving the artifact. We study the opposite signal: a deterministic, judge-free, ungameable filter -- whether a generated project launches cleanly under a headless engine (strict-launch). Under this gate, rejection-sampling self-distillation compounds out-of-family generalization. On GameCraft-Bench (mapping a natural-language brief to a complete Godot project), a 14B model (Qwen3-14B+LoRA) distilled under strict-launch raises clean generation on four unseen game families from 8.8% to 42.2% per-candidate and best-of-K coverage from 18/25 to 25/25 (the gold ceiling) over three rounds, each a significant gain (p=0.0019, p<1e-4, p<1e-4). The gain is not from merely adding data: an exactly-matched gold-duplication control regresses below the base model (5.6% vs. 8.8%, p=0.019), while a count-matched decomposition splits the round-1-to-2 jump into comparable quality (+8.8pp) and quantity (+8.5pp) channels. Most directly, rerunning the loop with only the filter swapped -- the lenient BUILD check, which passes 99.9% of generations, in place of the launch gate -- erases the gain entirely (back to base, p=1e-3 vs. the launch-gated round), isolating verifier precision rather than the optimizer. A second ungameable signal, headless execution grounding, rises monotonically across rounds and yields far more grounded candidates than gold-duplication at a matched budget (16 vs. 5), confirming the gains are functional, not launch-but-empty. Game generation is a verifiable testbed for one lesson: the verifier is the curriculum -- what it certifies is what the model learns.
LLM-based game generation promises to turn natural-language specifications into executable games, but progress is limited by the lack of reliable automated verification. Unlike conventional code generation, game correctness is defined over long-horizon interaction: a game may appear correct while violating core mechanics such as state updates, interaction rules, and phase transitions. Existing Agent-as-a-Verifier approaches collapse verification into open-ended gameplay, making verdicts reachability-bound, time-consuming, coverage-limited, and sensitive to the agent's gameplay ability. We present GameGen-Verifier, an automated verification paradigm for LLM-generated games that decomposes a specification into verifiable keypoints and grounds them into independent verification units. Each unit patches the game runtime into a concrete target state, executes a bounded interaction, and judges the outcome against the keypoint assertion. We implement GGV-Harness, a scalable agentic harness providing concurrency management, runtime isolation, and fault recovery. On VeriGame, our dataset of 100 games across seven genres, GameGen-Verifier achieves up to 92.2% accuracy against human judgments versus 58.8% for the coverage-enforced Agent-as-a-Verifier baseline, while reducing wall-clock time by up to 16.6x.
Game generation is an emerging application of coding agents, requiring models to transform natural-language specifications into playable interactive systems. Unlike traditional coding tasks, game generation takes place within a game engine, where scripts, scenes, assets, rendering, and runtime interactions must jointly produce coherent gameplay. We formalize end-to-end game generation as the problem of producing a complete game artifact that realizes a specification through observable player-game interaction in a target environment. We argue that evaluating this setting requires three desiderata: Engine Grounding, Artifact Completeness, and Interactive Verification. We propose an interaction-grounded evaluation framework that assesses executable gameplay through replayed demonstrations and rubric-guided multimodal judging. We instantiate this framework as GameCraft-Bench, a benchmark comprising 140 Godot tasks across 15 game families. Evaluations of frontier coding agents show that end-to-end game generation remains highly challenging: the strongest agent achieves only 41.46%, and most agents score below 40%. Further analysis reveals that while agents often implement recognizable mechanics, they struggle to deliver complete games with sufficient content, functional visual feedback, and coherent presentation. See https://tongxuluo.github.io/gamecraft-bench-website for demos, code, and data.
Coding agents can modify and test code across large software projects. Game development is a domain where agents must implement gameplay rules. A game can end in a valid state even after violating its rules during the run. Current game-development benchmarks replay fixed examples, score videos, or ask another model to judge the result. However, no existing benchmark checks game rules throughout execution across varied evaluator-selected scenarios while ensuring exactly reproducible verdicts. We introduce GameLogicBench, a benchmark of 72 gameplay-logic tasks in Godot projects. An automated evaluator checks each game's rules at every simulation tick. Across 403 hand-designed scenarios, seeded parameter variations produce 1,451 test cases. To ensure that the evaluator measures behavior rather than implementation choice, it must accept different correct implementations for each task while rejecting mutants, implementations with one required capability removed. The tasks span isolated mechanics, multi-system interactions, and repository-scale features. Across 20 combinations of language models and scaffolds, the best observed run solves 52.78% of tasks. Under Claude Code, all twelve models solve fewer tasks as task scope expands from isolated mechanics, through interacting systems, to repository-scale features. Agents inspect code more often and make more tool calls on repository-scale tasks than on isolated-mechanic tasks. Most unsuccessful submissions are runnable, but implement some required game behavior incorrectly. We compared versions of our benchmark evaluator built with and without validation using mutants. Without this validation, incorrect agent submissions passed. A separate analysis finds agents copying code from public repositories when network access is open. Reliable evaluation thus depends both on what the tests reject and on what external code agents can access.