Personalized game generation requires inferring a player's abilities and behavioral style from how they play. Large language models have made this inference more attainable than ever: an LLM can read a raw gameplay transcript and produce a fluent, plausible profile of the player. Plausible, however, is not verified, and verification is precisely what the field lacks: latent traits are unobservable; questionnaires provide noisy proxies and become circular when self-reports are used to validate behavior-based inference; and behavior itself is ambiguous without context -- a player who never collects an item may not want it, or may never have had the chance. We address both problems. First, we construct a synthetic player population whose traits are ground truth by construction: each trait is an explicit bot parameter, accepted only after controlled manipulation produces consistent, trait-specific behavioral change. Unlike prior parameter-recovery work that inverts a known decision model, our benchmark evaluates policy-agnostic inference from behavioral transcripts alone. Second, we introduce an opportunity-aware decision-moment representation that disentangles preference from the chance to express it; ablating it selectively degrades opportunity-dependent traits. On this benchmark, few-shot LLM inference outperforms embedding- and rule-based baselines on most traits, though feature-based supervised regressors remain stronger overall. Finally, we close the loop: inferred profiles drive difficulty adaptation, evaluated against ground-truth references and mismatched-profile controls, and an exploratory human study examines whether these findings transfer to real players.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview. (A) Synthetic players with parameterized traits produce opportunity-aware records; parameters enter the benchmark only after passing the admission test, and trait recovery is scored against them. (B) The same record schema drives the deployed pipeline: calibration play, LLM reading, and profile-conditioned generation.
Figure 2: Trait-parameter monotonicity validation: each parameter produces the expected monotone trend in its held-out behavioral probe (mean ± std over 5 seeds per level, 6 levels each).
Method
Dodge
Coll.
Aggr.
Skill
Macro
Rule
.67
.50
.45
.89
.63
FeatReg
.77
.56
.83
.91
.77
EmbReg
.65
−.04
.23
.67
.38
BPM 1-NN
.53
.32
.58
.84
.56
GMM (soft, K=8 )
.36
.38
.62
.76
.53
GMM (hard)
.32
.38
.56
.75
.50
Table 1: Recovery on the frozen test partition (Spearman ρ ). Best in bold , second best underlined . Supervised baselines are trained on 210 labeled sessions drawn from the same distribution as the test set; the LLM rows are our few-shot protocol instantiated with the indicated backbone.
Table 3: Collector recovery on the diagnostic probe level (Spearman ρ , n=30 per condition).
Bot
Truth
Inferred
Mismatch
Fixed
Easing
Novice
1.04 †
1.21 †
1.17 †
1.25 †
1.07 †
Low-mid
0
0
1.15 †
1.19 †
1.16 †
Mid
0
0.33
1.06 †
1.02 †
0
High
0
0
1.13 †
0
0
Expert
0
0.19
1.19 †
0.21
0.28
Survived
4/5
4/5
0/5
2/5
3/5
Table 4: Flow-matching score per agent level and arm (lower is better; 0 = inside the flow band). † marks a run that ended in death, which scores above 1 by construction. One run per cell.
Figure 3: Pilot study ( n=12 ). Per-participant LLM ability readings under three level-generation conditions; grey lines connect the same participant.
1Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University · Department of Communication, Interdisciplinary Program in Artificial Intelligence, Seoul National University