Application of machine learning to monster level prediction in tabletop RPG game design

Games and simulators make valuable benchmarks by turning decisions into measurable outcomes, but many current suites under-test rules-rich tactical reasoning: the ability to choose well when geometry, timing, resources, objectives, and rule interactions all matter at once. We introduce DungeonBench, a benchmark for tactical reasoning in Dungeons & Dragons combat, built to cover the vast majority of combat-relevant 2014 System Reference Document content whose effects can be resolved by the simulator while retaining mechanics that simplified combat simulators often abstract away. At each step, DungeonBench exposes a complete tactical observation, a pending decision, and an indexed list of executable options spanning movement, attacks, spells, reactions, objectives, preparation, and scarce resources. The task is to value legal choices whose consequences depend on action economy, creature traits, battlefield geometry, timing windows, and future encounters. DungeonBench has two tracks: Encounter, which evaluates local tactical play in single fights, and Day, which links encounters through persistent hit points, spell slots, consumables, preparation, and short-rest timing, forcing policies to trade off immediate tactical advantage against future survivability. The same engine-generated decision stream supports heuristic controllers, language-model policies, learned option rankers, and masked-action reinforcement-learning agents. We evaluate frontier language-model policies on this shared decision stream. Results show that full tactical observations do not saturate the benchmark: frontier policies often win direct encounters, but linked encounter days expose failures in resource budgeting, rest timing, and rule-aware tactical discipline.

Machine-learning predictors estimate processor performance far faster than cycle-level simulation. For design-space exploration, however, the valuable test is not merely reproducing the usual hardware ordering, but identifying how different hardware configurations rank on individual program phases. We evaluate four ML-predictors in two design regimes: \emph{Structural Parameters} (SP), varying hardware resources such as issue width, ROB size, and cache capacity; and \emph{Behavioral Policies} (BP), varying prefetching and replacement algorithms. In the SP regime, aggregate ranking is strong, yet counter-intuitive windows(CIW)---where the configuration expected to be slower is faster---constitute $22.4\%$ of non-tied windows across five pairs with a clear architectural prior. CIW match across these pairs is only $23.3$--$39.9\%$; every point estimate is below the $50\%$ random strict-ordering reference. The BP regime presents a different failure: ground-truth ties cover $37.8\%$ of pair-windows, most strict pairs have margins of only a few cycles, and no model family reliably beats a feature-free majority baseline. NeuroScalar and SimNet fall below that baseline, Concorde is statistically tied with it, and the best selected OneDSE head improves by only $2.1$ percentage points. Accuracy rises mainly at large margins. We further show that this failure is not a matter of model capacity: an information-theoretic analysis reveals that when ranking outcomes depend on hidden microarchitectural state absent from the instruction stream, no trace-based predictor can exceed the Bayes accuracy determined by observable inputs alone. Thus high cycle or aggregate ranking accuracy can reflect mastery of easy, high-margin cases while missing the local reversals that carry the most architectural insight and for which cycle-level simulation remains indispensable.

Recent tabular learning benchmarks increasingly show a tight performance cluster rather than a clear hierarchy among leading methods, spanning gradient boosted decision trees, attention-based architectures, and implicit ensembles such as TabM. As benchmark gains plateau, a complementary goal is to understand and control the mechanisms that make simple neural tabular models competitive. We propose LoMETab, a rank-$r$ generalization of multiplicative implicit ensembles. LoMETab lifts the rank-1 BatchEnsemble/TabM modulation to a rank-$r$ identity-residual Hadamard family by parameterizing each member weight as $W_k = W \odot (1 + A_kB_k^\top)$, where $W$ is shared and $(A_k, B_k)$ are member-specific low-rank factors. This exposes two practical diversity-control axes: the adapter rank $r$ and the initialization scale $σ_{\mathrm{init}}$, and we prove that for $r \ge 2$ this generalization strictly enlarges BatchEnsemble's hypothesis class. Empirically, we show that this added capacity manifests as measurable predictive diversity after training: on representative classification datasets, LoMETab sustains higher pairwise KL than an additive low-rank ablation, and $(r, σ_{\mathrm{init}})$ provides broad control over pairwise KL, varying by up to several orders of magnitude across configurations. The induced diversity is reflected in task-appropriate output-level measures: argmax disagreement for classification and ambiguity for regression, indicating that the control extends beyond pairwise KL to decision- and output-level member variation. Finally, experiments sweeping over adapter rank $r$ and initialization scale $σ_{\mathrm{init}}$ reveal that predictive performance is dataset-dependent over the $(r, σ_{\mathrm{init}})$ grid, supporting LoMETab as a controllable family of implicit ensembles rather than a fixed rank-1 construction.