Gym-Anything-RT

Scaling Real-Time Environments for Vision-Language Agents

Pranjal Aggarwal · Sean Welleck
Carnegie Mellon University

Video games and physical devices keep changing while an agent thinks. Gym-Anything-RT builds real-time minigames to measure this, and controls their clock so the same task can be played live, slowed down, or paused.

Each real-time minigame has a non-real-time counterpart, five difficulty levels, and two interaction modes, giving 2,000 configurations in total.

100
Real-Time Minigames

The strongest model, GPT-6 Astra (xHigh), solves 9% of the real-time tasks and 66% of their non-real-time counterparts.

9%
Best Model, Real Time

One of the authors, seeing each minigame for the first time, solved 9 of 20 randomly sampled real-time tasks, in 2.2 minutes per task on average.

45%
Human, Real Time

When the minigame is paused between observation and action, Astra (xHigh) solves 75% of the same real-time tasks.

75%
Best Model, Paused

Human vs. AI on the Same Minigame

Frontier models take several seconds for every input, and the minigame keeps moving in the meantime. The model replays are sped up, and their clock shows the real elapsed time.

Human real time
Human recording coming soon

All runs use difficulty 5 with full interaction in the live setting, on the same seed. Orange rings mark where the model clicked after seeing each screenshot.

Leaderboard

100 real-time minigames at the highest difficulty. Every model does far better on the non-real-time counterparts of the same minigames, and every model is slower than a human.

# Model Real-time Non-real-time Time / attempt Cost / attempt
– Human* 45.0% – 2.2 min –
1 GPT-6 Astra (xHigh) 9.0% 66.0% 7.2 min $4.50
2 GPT-6 Astra (Low) 8.0% 58.0% 4.3 min $2.76
3 Claude Opus 5.5 (xHigh) 5.0% 57.0% 15.8 min $6.40
4 GPT-6 Luna (xHigh) 1.0% 17.0% 6.4 min $0.07
5 Qwen3.8-27B 1.0% 2.0% 63.0 min $0.64
6 Qwen3.5-9B 0.0% 1.0% 75.9 min $0.62

Pass rates at difficulty 5 with full interaction in the live setting. Time and cost are averages per real-time attempt.
*One of the authors, on 20 randomly sampled real-time tasks, seeing each minigame for the first time.

Key Results

Frontier models fail mainly because they are too slow. Giving them more time recovers most of the gap, and letting them write code that acts on their behalf recovers part of it.

Real Time Is the Gap

Pass rates on the 100 real-time minigames and their non-real-time counterparts.

Speed Is the Bottleneck

Slowing the environment raises Astra's pass rate on the same real-time tasks from 9% to 57%, and pausing raises it to 75%.

Code Partially Compensates

When allowed to run code, Astra writes scripts that perceive and act between its own responses, raising its real-time pass rate from 9% to 31%.

How It Works

Coding agents build each minigame as a program, and our evaluation stack controls its clock.

01 · CREATE

Creator and Auditor Agents

A creator agent turns a seed puzzle into a real-time minigame program with an oracle solution that shows the task is solvable. Independent audit agents test it and send problems back until it passes.

02 · CONTROL TIME

Live, Slowed, or Paused

Our evaluation stack controls every clock in the minigame, so the same task can run at its natural speed, slowed down to give the agent more time, or paused between observation and action.

03 · VARY

Controlled Variants

Each minigame has a non-real-time counterpart, five difficulty levels, and two interaction modes. Review agents label the capabilities each configuration requires.

Surveysource records
→
Selectionseed minigame
→
Creatorprogram + oracle
⇄
Auditorverification
revise
→
Reviewdifficulty, capabilities
→
2,000configurations

Live

The minigame runs at its natural speed while the model reasons.

Slowed (up to 64×)

Every clock in the minigame runs slower, while actions and screenshots stay real time.

Paused

The minigame advances through a short observation window, then freezes until the model acts.

BibTeX

@misc{aggarwal2026gymanythingrt,
      title={Gym-Anything-RT: Scaling Real-Time Environments for Vision-Language Agents},
      author={Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck},
      year={2026},
      eprint={2610.37567},
      archivePrefix={arXiv},
      primaryClass={cs.LG},
      url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37567},
}