LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo

Game-theoretic benchmarks claim that large language model (LLM) strategic decision-making varies across game types, interaction structures, and capability dimensions. However, they only evaluate strategic performance across individual fixed models. In parallel, contemporary LLM routers pick models under quality-cost trade-offs, but with no notion of a strategic structure. They do not account for an opponent that might be unknown, and that can adapt over time and shift the feedback signal. To address this, we extend the game-theoretic evaluations and define strategic selection as the meta game layered on top of the base game. In each round, a strategic selector fields an LLM from a portfolio of models to navigate a game payoff matrix that is latent and learned online. We find that the evaluation signal is game-specific, and that extracting a reliable signal requires a much higher number of seed runs $N$ compared to traditional benchmarking setups. Evaluating across 5 games and 10 LLMs, we show a model's strategic competence varies significantly depending on the game setup and the opponent faced. Building on this, we implement a suite of selector methods and find that approaches that rely on query embeddings or LLM self-reflection do not consistently capture the underlying strategic signal. A lightweight multi-armed bandit algorithm performs more reliably across games, though it still falls short of the best fixed model. Finally, we show that simple non-stationary and adversarial bandit variants fail to outperform a stationary bandit baseline, pointing to a gap in how current methods handle a shifting opponent in strategic settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as economic agents in marketplaces, auctions, and bidding settings. Anticipating their behavior in any specific deployment is hard. Existing strategic-reasoning benchmarks evaluate models on fixed canonical games. These benchmarks may saturate as the frontier improves, and they do not allow evaluators to generalize with confidence from benchmark performance to the varied and messy strategic environments that actual deployments involve. We introduce GENSTRAT, which uses procedurally generated strategic environments to address these challenges. Concretely, we generate a distribution of two-player zero-sum imperfect-information card games. The generator can draw fresh games on demand, allowing for evergreen evaluation and resistance to contamination. We pair the game distribution with a capability-profile methodology that decomposes model competence across six axes (state space, temporal depth, information sensitivity, opponent modeling, risk, and brittleness). We also introduce a jaggedness measure of within-distribution smoothness that detects when a model's advantage jumps unpredictably between strategically similar games. We sample 50 benchmark games from a 2,000-game generated pool and evaluate nine frontier and open-weight LLMs in a head-to-head tournament with over 36,000 matches. Newer frontier-tier models score higher on average. Beyond that average, models with near-identical overall strength show qualitatively different capability profiles, and two of the top three leaderboard models (gpt-5 and claude) are noticeably more locally volatile than the third (gemini-3.1-pro), despite being close in overall strength. Together, the capability profile and the jaggedness measure give a deployment-relevant diagnostic that the overall ranking alone cannot provide.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has spurred economists to study how humans and LLMs behave in strategic settings. We organized a series of round-robin tournaments in the Colonel Blotto game. This game attracts game theorists' attention due to high-dimensional action space and the absence of pure strategy Nash equilibria. In the first tournament, more than 200 human participants competed against one another. In the second tournament, several popular LLMs were invited to submit strategies. In the third tournament, we matched the number of LLM strategies to the number submitted by humans. We find that humans more often employ better-calibrated intermediate-level allocation heuristics and outperform the simpler, more stereotyped strategies submitted by LLMs. Strategic sophistication is key to success if and only if the necessary level of reasoning depth is reached, while lower and higher levels of reasoning offer no clear advantage over the primitive strategies. Among humans, field of study weakly predicts success: participants with STEM backgrounds perform better in the first tournament. Surprisingly, humans almost do not adjust their strategies across tournaments with different sets of opponents. This result suggests that humans base their choices primarily on the game's rules rather than on the identity of their opponents, treating LLMs much like human competitors.