Organizations: Alibaba Group · Nanjing University · National University of Singapore · Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Peking University
Interactive environments offer a practical way to evaluate large language model (LLM) agents, and competitive games extend this evaluation to decisions shaped by competing goals and other agents' choices. Yet existing evaluations confined to individual games or execution frameworks leave unclear which competitive advantages persist across settings. We introduce DECE (Diverse Eurogame Competitive Environments), a unified arena spanning ten Eurogames with shared interfaces and evaluation protocols. These games combine lasting strategic commitments, competition over shared resources, and multiple routes to victory. Our primary study evaluates 12 model-harness configurations, spanning nine models and four execution harnesses, in 480 three-player matches across ten games. The main and supplementary studies comprise 1,032 completed matches in total. These comparisons reveal broad cross-game ranking agreement alongside game-specific strengths. Matched studies show that the same model can perform differently across execution harnesses, adding another source of variation to these profiles. These performance advantages do not consistently translate into better token or cost efficiency, making resource use an additional consideration when comparing configurations. Together, the findings support evaluating complete agent configurations by both their competitive performance across games and the resources needed to achieve it.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: DECE overview. Shared interfaces connect games and model–harness systems. Seat-balanced matches produce trajectories and telemetry for four analyses. Icons show adapter families; Table 3 lists evaluated configurations. The mascot, pairings, and plots are schematic.
Benchmark
Game scope
Interaction
Main decision demands
Evaluation focus
GameBench ( 2024 )
9 board, card and social games
Players or teams
Spatial tactics, deck building and social inference
Competitive play; scaffold comparisons
MindGames ( 2026 )
4 strategic and social games
2–6 players; rivals or teams
Opponent inference, signaling, trust and deception
Social reasoning; arena validity
FinBoardBench ( 2026b )
Cashflow, Acquire, Monopoly
4-player competition
Cash flow, investment, mergers and negotiation
Financial decision analysis
PTCG-Bench ( 2026 )
Pokémon TCG; 5 decks
2-player competition
Card combinations, resource recovery and action order
Self-evolution; harness and cost analysis
From Code to Play ( 2024 )
12 TAG tabletop games
2–4-player tournaments
Deck building, drafting and tactical card play
Generate evaluators for search agents
LudoBench ( 2026 )
5 strategy board games
Fixed states
Perception, rule integration and local optimization
Fixed-state question answering
Table 1: Game scope, decision demands, and evaluation focus of related tabletop benchmarks. Entries summarize reported tasks and selected analyses. Appendix C gives sources and scope.
Group
Game
Tier
Players
Distinctive strategic demand
Capacity
Splendor
⋆
2–4
Shared-market timing; engine investment
Century: Spice Road
⋆
2–5
Resource conversion; hand cycling
Wingspan
⋆⋆
2–5
Tableau synergies; activation order
Spatial
Azul
⋆
2–4
Drafting; spatial scoring; denial
Harmonies
⋆⋆
2–4
Three-dimensional pattern construction
Carcassonne
⋆
2–5
Shared topology; follower commitment
Table 2: The selected ten-game roster and complementary strategic demands. Groups and colors follow Figure 2 . Player ranges describe the selected competitive multiplayer scope; solo modes are excluded. Stars denote introductory ( ⋆ ), intermediate ( ⋆⋆ ), and advanced ( ⋆⋆⋆ ) design tiers.
Figure 2: Complementary strategic demands across ten Eurogames. Each game is annotated along six dimensions. Values 0/1/2 denote absent/limited/prominent mechanisms; colors indicate overlapping strategic emphases. Appendix B gives the rubric and evidence.
Capacity
Space
Coordination
Participant
ID
SP
CE
WI
AZ
HA
CA
7W
BU
BR
AN
Mean
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
66.7
66.7
83.3
66.7
75.0
66.7
66.7
70.8
95.8
95.8
75.4
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
54.2
87.5
75.0
66.7
79.2
81.2
75.0
87.5
66.7
83.3
75.6
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
37.5
70.8
45.8
33.3
37.5
39.6
41.7
41.7
79.2
75.0
50.2
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
20.8
12.5
16.7
37.5
37.5
29.2
25.0
41.7
33.3
41.7
29.6
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
58.3
58.3
62.5
58.3
58.3
66.7
66.7
58.3
58.3
58.3
60.4
Table 3: Three-player PWS (%) across ten games. IDs 1–12 use the 480-match main cohort; Mean weights games equally. Bold marks the highest main-cohort estimate per game. IDs 13–15 are separate-cohort non-LLM baselines (Appendix D.8 ).
Public spatial ( G )
Other games ( H )
Model
Harness A
AZ
HA
CA
BU
SP
CE
WI
7W
BR
AN
Qwen3.8-Max
Qwen Code
+33.3
+10.4
+33.3
+41.7
+20.8
+12.5
+12.5
−12.5
0.0
−33.3
GPT-5.6-Sol
Codex
0.0
−4.2
−14.6
−16.7
+12.5
−20.8
+8.3
−8.3
+29.2
+12.5
DSV4-Pro
DSH
+12.5
−4.2
+16.7
−4.2
0.0
+8.3
+25.0
+4.2
+4.2
0.0
Table 4: Same-model configuration differences across ten games (PWS, percentage points). (a) Harness A minus OpenCode for each game. (b) Equal-game group means, their difference Γ with pointwise 95% intervals, and the range of Γ after omitting one game at a time. Comparisons use the 480-match native cohort.
Figure 3: Harness contrasts in two independent studies. (a,b) Paired PWS gains, Qwen Code (QC) minus OpenCode (OC). (c) All six scenario gains per model–game cell in the 48-match within-Qwen-family study; columns match within each game. (d) Differences in gains: Qwen3.8-Flash minus DSV4-Flash (0731 snapshot; 72 matches), and Qwen3.8-Max minus Qwen3.8-Flash (48). Whiskers: pointwise 95% scenario-bootstrap intervals, without multiplicity correction.
Figure 4: Elo–cost Pareto frontiers by game (480 three-player matches; IDs from Table 3 ). Outlined points are nondominated; staircases show maximum estimated Elo per mean-cost budget. Axes are shared; whiskers: pointwise 95% whole-match intervals. Stability and resources: Appendix E ; token frontiers: Figure 10 .
Appendix figures & tables27 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Game
Rules edition
Configuration scope
Splendor
Classic base rules
Developments, reservations, and nobles.
Century: Spice Road
Plan B base rules (2017)
Merchant hands public in DECE.
Wingspan
Stonemaier base English rules
Base English set; green goal board.
Azul
Next Move base rules (2018)
Colored-wall variant.
Harmonies
Libellud base rules (2024)
Board A; nature spirits disabled.
Carcassonne
Base rules with farmers
Base game with farmers.
Appendix
Table 5: Implemented game configurations. Rule versions come from engine metadata and experiment records; expansion options were checked against all 336 final databases.
ID
Recorded model string
Harness
Effort
1
gpt-5.6-sol
Codex
xhigh
2
openai/gpt-5.6-sol
OpenCode
xhigh
3
gpt-5.6-terra
Codex
xhigh
4
gpt-5.6-luna
Codex
xhigh
5
deepseek-v4-pro-0813
DSH
max
6
deepseek-v4-pro-0813
OpenCode
max
Appendix
Table 6: Registered model strings and effort fields in the completed seven-game expansion. IDs match the primary participant panel in Table 3 .
Figure 5: Integration and execution in DECE. The numbered stages follow one match; the loop repeats while play remains active. Controllers receive seat-specific views and return action IDs. The versioned game plugin applies rules, and the store commits state and events. Simultaneous choices are collected before any action is applied; public decision updates follow the complete group. Recorded calls and usage support resource analysis.
Game
EC
SP
AS
OC
HI
SC
Splendor
2
0
1
1
1
1
Century: Spice Road
2
0
2
1
0
1
Wingspan
2
0
2
1
2
2
Azul
0
2
1
2
0
2
Harmonies
0
2
1
1
0
2
Carcassonne
0
2
1
2
0
2
Appendix
Table 7: Explicit values behind Figure 2 . These ordinal mechanism annotations are not added or averaged.
Game
Matches
D : median [IQR]
Engine turns
D/3
Splendor
48
81 [77.2, 84]
81
27
Century
48
129 [119.2, 135]
129
43
Wingspan
48
370 [357.8, 411.2]
370
123.3
Azul
48
70 [67.8, 72.2]
70
23.3
Harmonies
48
166.5 [158.8, 171.2]
166.5
55.5
Carcassonne
48
142 [142, 142]
142
47.3
Appendix
Table 8: Recorded decision and turn counts for all ten native games in the 480-match three-player cohort. D is the whole-match decision counter; brackets give its interquartile range. Engine turns and D/3 are medians over matches. Counter granularity is game-specific; D/3 is a within-match average over seats, not an individual-player distribution.
Game
3p matches
Appear./config.
Each seat
2p matches
4p matches
Splendor
48
12
4
72
36
Century
48
12
4
–
–
Wingspan
48
12
4
–
–
Azul
48
12
4
–
–
Harmonies
48
12
4
–
–
Carcassonne
48
12
4
–
–
Appendix
Table 9: Native match coverage across all ten games. Appearance and seat columns refer to the three-player cohort. The final columns contain the 252 supplementary two-/four-player matches; dashes mean no observed stratum. Each three-player game has the same 12-configuration roster.
Configuration
ID
SP
CE
WI
AZ
HA
CA
7W
BU
BR
AN
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
1622
1686
1811
1609
1821
1634
1634
1699
2068
2143
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
1552
1908
1728
1629
1888
1789
1695
1884
1673
1902
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
1419
1746
1511
1385
1328
1385
1445
1435
1794
1752
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
1275
1105
1170
1414
1329
1327
1297
1413
1328
1432
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
1567
1646
1603
1561
1561
1641
1620
1590
1591
1614
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
6
1550
1613
1378
1478
1660
1477
1583
1598
1525
1605
Appendix
Table 10: Three-player Elo point estimates for all ten native games, rounded to integers. Each game is fitted separately over the same 12 configurations and centered at 1500. No average of per-game Elo is used. IDs and game abbreviations follow Table 3 .
Configuration
Mean PWS (%)
95% interval
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
75.6
[69.7, 81.3]
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
75.4
[68.9, 81.7]
Qwen3.8-Max / Qwen Code
70.2
[64.5, 75.7]
DSV4-Pro / DSH
60.4
[53.6, 67.0]
Qwen3.8-Max / OpenCode
58.3
[51.9, 64.7]
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
54.2
[47.3, 60.8]
Appendix
Table 11: Ten-game equal-weight PWS and pointwise 95% whole-match bootstrap intervals. Each configuration has 120 primary-cohort appearances. These estimates exclude non-LLM baselines and the matched-bridge cohort.
Game
LOEO τb
Order acc.
Split-half mean
Split 5–95% range
SP
0.49
75.4%
0.18
[-0.07, 0.44]
CE
0.72
86.2%
0.58
[0.38, 0.78]
WI
0.72
86.2%
0.55
[0.33, 0.74]
AZ
0.59
80.6%
0.27
[0.00, 0.53]
HA
0.71
85.9%
0.64
[0.47, 0.80]
CA
0.86
93.8%
0.49
[0.27, 0.71]
Appendix
Table 12: Descriptive cross-game ranking agreement and within-game split-half reliability. Game abbreviations match Table 3 . The final range describes variation across random splits; it is not a confidence interval.
Configuration
SP
CE
WI
AZ
HA
CA
7W
BU
BR
AN
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
2
4
2
3
4
4
2
3
1
1
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
5
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
10
3
6
11
10
7
8
8
2
4
Qwen3.8-Max / Qwen Code
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
2
6
8
Qwen3.8-Max / OpenCode
9
5
4
8
3
5
5
10
7
3
DSV4-Pro / DSH
4
6
5
4
6
3
3
5
4
5
Appendix
Table 13: Selected configurations’ three-player Elo ranks among all 12 participants in each game; 1 is highest. Columns follow Table 3 .
Descriptive check (Qwen3.8-Max throughout)
PWS difference (pp)
Public spatial: Qwen Code minus OpenCode
+29.7
Same contrast, omit Azul
+28.5
Same contrast, omit Harmonies
+36.1
Same contrast, omit Burgundy
+25.7
Same contrast, omit Carcassonne
+28.5
HI=2: Qwen Code minus OpenCode
−8.3
Appendix
Table 14: Additional game-deletion diagnostics for Qwen3.8-Max: Qwen Code minus OpenCode PWS. Public spatial means spatial planning = 2 and hidden information = 0; hidden information = 2 denotes central private holdings. These within-group means differ from the between-group contrast in Table 4 .
Figure 6: Same-model PWS contrasts across all ten native games in the 480-match three-player cohort. Positive values favor the first named harness; diamonds show equal-game means. Pointwise 95% intervals reuse the joint whole-match bootstrap draws, preserving covariance between configurations within a game. These descriptive native-system contrasts use different opponent samples and are separate from the matched studies.
Figure 7: Per-game PWS with pointwise 95% whole-match bootstrap intervals for all ten native games. IDs match Table 3 ; every panel orders configurations by their ten-game mean PWS. Each panel contains 48 three-player matches and 12 appearances per configuration. The dashed reference is 50% PWS.
ID
SP
CE
WI
AZ
HA
1
66.7 [40.0, 90.9]
66.7 [38.9, 90.0]
83.3 [68.8, 95.8]
66.7 [43.8, 87.5]
75.0 [54.5, 92.9]
2
54.2 [35.7, 73.1]
87.5 [66.7, 100.0]
75.0 [55.0, 92.9]
66.7 [47.2, 85.0]
79.2 [59.1, 95.8]
3
37.5 [13.6, 62.5]
70.8 [50.0, 88.9]
45.8 [25.0, 68.8]
33.3 [12.5, 56.2]
37.5 [14.3, 62.5]
4
20.8 [4.2, 40.9]
12.5 [0.0, 25.0]
16.7 [0.0, 37.5]
37.5 [14.3, 62.5]
37.5 [20.0, 55.0]
5
58.3 [37.5, 78.1]
58.3 [42.3, 75.0]
62.5 [40.9, 83.3]
58.3 [30.0, 83.3]
58.3 [38.2, 78.6]
6
58.3 [31.8, 85.0]
50.0 [33.3, 66.7]
37.5 [13.6, 62.5]
45.8 [30.6, 60.0]
62.5 [40.0, 83.3]
Appendix
Table 15: Ten-game PWS (%) and pointwise 95% whole-match bootstrap intervals. Panels cover all 120 primary cells; IDs and game abbreviations match Table 3 . Each cell uses 12 appearances. Intervals are computed jointly within each game’s sampled matches and are not simultaneous bounds across cells.
Figure 8: Execution demand and recorded token volume across the ten-game primary cohort. Cells are means over 12 appearances: (a) saved controller decisions; (b) normalized input plus output tokens, in millions. Each panel has its own logarithmic color scale; printed values use the original units. Game abbreviations follow Table 3 .
Token-usage coverage
Configuration
ID
Decisions
Summary coverage
Combined coverage
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
8,176
0/120
120/120
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
7,975
114/120
120/120
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
7,673
0/120
120/120
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
7,303
0/120
120/120
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
7,656
114/120
120/120
Appendix
Table 16: Ten-game execution and usage coverage, 120 appearances per configuration. Decisions are totals from saved controller records. Summary coverage counts appearances with numeric token totals in controller summaries; combined coverage includes usage from native session records. For Codex, native session logs provide token usage for all 360 primary-cohort appearances (120 per configuration); the controller summaries omit these totals.
Nominal model
Uncached input
Cached input
Output
GPT-5.6-Sol
4.0000
0.4000
20.0000
GPT-5.6-Terra
2.0000
0.2000
12.0000
GPT-5.6-Luna
0.2000
0.0200
1.2000
DSV4-Flash
0.4424
0.0442
1.3272
DSV4-Pro
1.3272
0.1327
3.9817
GLM-5.2
1.1797
0.2949
4.1291
Appendix
Table 17: Fixed price scenario, USD per million tokens, dated 28 August 2026 and converted at 6.7811 CNY per USD. Rates are fixed across the resource analysis.
Configuration
ID
SP
CE
WI
AZ
HA
CA
7W
BU
BR
AN
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
4.95
10.29
38.90
3.73
12.06
12.71
3.84
19.19
40.53
37.20
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
3.87
9.64
34.18
3.33
11.74
11.93
2.85
19.89
16.83
34.14
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
2.31
6.26
17.29
2.37
5.98
6.40
2.01
10.89
25.07
20.63
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
0.42
0.61
1.48
0.25
0.63
0.62
0.26
1.12
2.00
1.85
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
2.53
4.92
9.19
2.82
4.20
5.81
2.38
7.25
13.69
11.36
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
6
1.79
4.74
13.64
2.18
4.60
8.57
1.71
12.42
22.07
23.50
Appendix
Table 18: Recorded API-equivalent USD per participant appearance, twelve appearances in every cell. Games follow Table 3 . Costs use Equation 5 .
Configuration
PWS (%)
USD [95% interval]
Tokens (M)
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
75.4
18.34 [17.83, 18.89]
31.89
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
75.6
14.84 [14.38, 15.35]
27.79
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
50.2
9.92 [9.63, 10.20]
31.21
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
29.6
0.92 [0.89, 0.96]
27.74
DSV4-Pro / DSH
60.4
6.42 [6.21, 6.62]
32.76
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
54.2
9.52 [8.81, 10.28]
61.06
Appendix
Table 19: Equal-game resource overview. Each configuration contributes 120 three-player appearances across ten games. Cost intervals are pointwise 95% whole-match percentile intervals conditional on the accounting and price schedule. Tokens include cached input and reasoning exactly once.
Configuration
ID
Games
Sp
Ce
Wi
Az
Ha
Ca
7W
Bu
Br
AN
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
5/10
44.3
12.2
63.6
29.6
26.3
19.8
18.3
51.0
90.3
94.0
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
9/10
22.4
83.8
54.5
51.7
64.5
88.7
55.5
90.7
69.8
83.5
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
3/10
4.7
81.2
16.0
3.7
0.7
2.5
7.7
7.2
74.5
85.6
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
10/10
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.4
100.0
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
10/10
37.0
71.4
81.5
42.6
71.5
98.7
49.6
76.5
93.1
92.0
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
6
5/10
63.0
70.1
3.7
14.6
83.1
6.2
65.7
44.8
6.7
16.3
Appendix
Table 20: Pareto-frontier coverage and bootstrap membership frequency (%). Games and configuration IDs follow Table 3 . Coverage counts point-estimate frontiers out of ten games; each frequency uses 5,000 joint whole-match draws. Bold entries mark membership in the point-estimate frontier.
Figure 9: Aggregate performance and resource use on the same 480 three-player matches as Figure 4 . Each point averages ten games equally, with 120 appearances per configuration. Logarithmic horizontal axes show mean API-equivalent USD per appearance and input-plus-output tokens. Whiskers are pointwise 95% whole-match intervals; IDs match Table 3 .
Figure 10: Game-specific Elo–token Pareto frontiers on the same 480 three-player matches as Figure 4 . Horizontal axes show mean input-plus-output tokens per appearance in millions, on a log scale. Elo axes, configuration IDs, and plotting conventions match the cost figure. Outlined, labeled points are nondominated at the point estimates; whiskers show pointwise 95% whole-match intervals. Token volume measures recorded usage, independently of the price schedule.
Configuration
ID
USD
Tokens
SP
CE
WI
AZ
HA
CA
7W
BU
BR
AN
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
5
8
70.4
60.6
79.5
42.3
93.7
90.0
31.1
97.3
96.2
98.8
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
9
9
99.9
92.7
62.2
98.2
73.0
81.6
99.2
88.7
99.4
17.4
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
3
2
7.7
11.9
31.2
0.4
67.9
59.9
1.1
26.1
49.5
16.5
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
10
3
0.1
0.1
31.6
0.9
69.1
80.6
0.0
2.3
1.3
77.5
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
10
2
15.9
1.2
92.3
16.9
31.0
5.7
16.7
1.8
24.0
47.3
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
6
5
0
21.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
6.4
0.5
13.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 21: Dollar and token frontier coverage, followed by token-frontier membership frequencies (%) over 5,000 joint whole-match draws. USD and Tokens count point-estimate frontiers out of ten games. Bold entries mark token-frontier membership at the point estimates. Game abbreviations and IDs follow Table 3 .
Configuration
ID
SP 2p
SP 4p
7W 4p
BR 2p
BR 4p
GPT-5.6-Sol / Codex
1
50.0
55.6
77.8
100.0
91.7
GPT-5.6-Sol / OpenCode
2
58.3
52.8
58.3
83.3
66.7
GPT-5.6-Terra / Codex
3
58.3
29.2
56.9
91.7
77.8
GPT-5.6-Luna / Codex
4
16.7
13.9
36.1
29.2
44.4
DSV4-Pro / DSH
5
66.7
69.4
52.8
29.2
75.0
DSV4-Pro / OpenCode
6
58.3
47.2
62.5
50.0
38.9
Appendix
Table 22: Supplementary player-count PWS (%) from 252 two-/four-player matches, with 12 appearances per configuration and stratum. The common three-player comparison across all ten games is in Table 3 . Only Splendor, 7 Wonders, and Brass have additional observed player counts; coverage is listed in Table 9 .
Game
Focal model
OpenCode
Qwen Code
Δ PWS [95% CI]
Splendor
DSV4-Flash
50.0
55.6
+5.6[−38.9,44.4]
Splendor
Qwen3.8-Flash
38.9
55.6
+16.7[−16.7,50.0]
7 Wonders
DSV4-Flash
66.7
61.1
−5.6[−38.9,27.8]
7 Wonders
Qwen3.8-Flash
27.8
72.2
+44.4[11.1,77.8]
Equal-game mean
DSV4-Flash
58.3
58.3
+0.0[−27.8,25.0]
Equal-game mean
Qwen3.8-Flash
33.3
63.9
+30.6[5.6,52.8]
Appendix
Table 23: Focal PWS (%) and harness contrasts (percentage points), Qwen Code minus OpenCode. Each game–model cell contains nine matched pairs; the pooled row has 18 pairs with equal game weights. Pointwise 95% percentile intervals use 100,000 scenario-cluster bootstrap draws. These are anchor-relative PWS diagnostics, not Elo or four-way head-to-head rankings.
Focal model
Harness
PWS (%)
First
Second
Third
Qwen3.8-Flash
Qwen Code
63.9
9
5
4
DSV4-Flash
OpenCode
58.3
7
7
4
DSV4-Flash
Qwen Code
58.3
6
9
3
Qwen3.8-Flash
OpenCode
33.3
3
6
9
Appendix
Table 24: Anchor-relative final placements in the matched bridge. Each row has 18 matches, nine per game. Rows follow point-estimate PWS. Equal PWS can conceal different first-place and last-place frequencies.
Game
Model
OpenCode
Qwen Code
Δ [95% interval]
+/=/−
Splendor
Qwen3.8-Flash
25.0
33.3
+8.3[−25.0,41.7]
3/1/2
Splendor
Qwen3.8-Max
33.3
91.7
+58.3[50.0,75.0]
6/0/0
7 Wonders
Qwen3.8-Flash
16.7
33.3
+16.7[−25.0,58.3]
3/1/2
7 Wonders
Qwen3.8-Max
75.0
83.3
+8.3[−25.0,50.0]
1/4/1
Appendix
Table 25: The 48-match within-Qwen-family study. Each model–game comparison has six matched pairs. PWS is in percent and contrasts are in percentage points; +/=/− counts scenarios in which Qwen Code improves, matches, or worsens focal placement relative to OpenCode. Intervals are pointwise 95% scenario-bootstrap percentiles.
We introduce Kaggle Game Arena, an open and ever-expanding platform to evaluate large language models (LLMs) through competitive games. Different from static benchmarks, game arena enables models to play head-to-head matchups in structured environments where the gameplay strength naturally increases as models evolve, preventing performance saturation. This technical report details the infrastructure behind Game Arena and describes the three pilot game environments: Chess, Poker, and Werewolf. These environments span perfect information, imperfect information, and multiplayer game settings, enabling a systematic study of models' strategic planning, adaptation, and robustness under uncertainty. For each game, we provide a detailed description of the environment, evaluation metrics, and results from running full competitions across models. Through robust infrastructure and large-scale ground-truth based evaluation, Game Arena ensures reproducibility, transparency and generalizability to new games and variants over time.
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.
Arastun Mammadli, Herbert Woisetschläger, Jawad Fayaz +1
University of Exeter United Kingdom · IBM Research Switzerland
Vision-language model (VLM) agents are increasingly deployed in interactive game environments. Yet game benchmarks for VLM agents typically report a single first-attempt score per (agent, game) pair, focus on single-agent Solo play, and lack unified protocols for evaluating heterogeneous agent classes (commercial VLMs, open-weight VLMs, and specialized game policies) on the same footing. We address these gaps with OmniGameArena, a real-time benchmark of twelve newly built Unreal Engine 5 games spanning Solo (7), PvP (3), and Coop (2) with unified action interfaces, and the Improvement Dynamics Curve (IDC), an agentic-reflection harness in which a tool-using reflector LLM autonomously refines a bounded skill prompt across multiple rounds. Beyond cold-start leaderboard scores, IDC exposes two additional observables for each (agent, game) pair: how the score evolves across reflection rounds, and how the learned skill behaves on held-out task variants. We report these observables for twelve VLM agents on the cold-start leaderboard and four top agents under IDC.
Mingxian Lin, Shengju Qian, Yuqi Liu +9
1The University of Hong Kong · 2LIGHTSPEED · 3The Chinese University of Hong Kong +1