Evaluating Language Models' Evaluations of Games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10930v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 02:45:37 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Language Models' Evaluations of Games
• Authors: Katherine M. Collins, Cedegao E. Zhang, Graham Todd, Lance Ying, Mauricio Barba da Costa, Ryan Liu, Prafull Sharma, Adrian Weller, Ionatan Kuperwajs, Lionel Wong, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Thomas L. Griffiths,
• Abstract summary: We advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games.<n>We leverage a large-scale dataset of over $100$ novel board games and over 450 human judgments.<n>Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models.
• Score: 65.49017696754825
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over $100$ novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Related papers

• The Token Games: Evaluating Language Model Reasoning with Puzzle Duels [6.179868854898031]
  We take inspiration from 16th-century mathematical duels to The Token Games (TTG): an evaluation framework where models challenge each other by creating puzzles.<n>Using results from pairwise duels, we then compute Elo ratings, allowing us to compare models relative to each other.<n>We evaluate 10 frontier models on TTG, and closely match the ranking from existing benchmarks such as Humanity's Last Exam, without involving any human effort in creating puzzles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T20:49:15Z)
• People use fast, flat goal-directed simulation to reason about novel problems [68.55490343866545]
  We show that people are systematic and adaptively rational in how they play a game for the first time.<n>We explain these capacities via a computational cognitive model that we call the "Intuitive Gamer"<n>Our work offers new insights into how people rapidly evaluate, act, and make suggestions when encountering novel problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T15:12:08Z)
• Bayesian Social Deduction with Graph-Informed Language Models [3.7540464038118633]
  Social reasoning remains a challenging task for large language models.<n>We introduce a hybrid reasoning framework that externalizes belief inference to a structured probabilistic model.<n>Our approach achieves competitive performance with much larger models in Agent-Agent play.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T18:45:28Z)
• MastermindEval: A Simple But Scalable Reasoning Benchmark [3.5519847710183674]
  We introduce MastermindEval, a simple, scalable, and interpretable deductive reasoning benchmark inspired by the board game Mastermind.<n>Our benchmark supports two evaluation paradigms: (1) agentic evaluation, in which the model autonomously plays the game, and (2) deductive reasoning evaluation, in which the model is given a pre-played game state with only one possible valid code to infer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T19:24:59Z)
• Re-evaluating Open-ended Evaluation of Large Language Models [50.23008729038318]
  We show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental.<n>We propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T15:07:47Z)
• Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision [120.40788744292739]
  We propose a two-player paradigm that separates the roles of reasoning and critique models. We first propose AutoMathCritique, an automated and scalable framework for collecting critique data. We demonstrate that the critique models consistently improve the actor's performance on difficult queries at test-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T17:11:54Z)
• Pseudointelligence: A Unifying Framework for Language Model Evaluation [14.95543156914676]
  We propose a complexity-theoretic framework of model evaluation cast as a dynamic interaction between a model and a learned evaluator. We demonstrate that this framework can be used to reason about two case studies in language model evaluation, as well as analyze existing evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T17:48:05Z)
• Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions [116.67206980096513]
  We introduce CheckMate, a prototype platform for humans to interact with and evaluate large language models (LLMs) We conduct a study with CheckMate to evaluate three language models (InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) as assistants in proving undergraduate-level mathematics. We derive a taxonomy of human behaviours and uncover that despite a generally positive correlation, there are notable instances of divergence between correctness and perceived helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T17:12:25Z)
• JECC: Commonsense Reasoning Tasks Derived from Interactive Fictions [75.42526766746515]
  We propose a new commonsense reasoning dataset based on human's Interactive Fiction (IF) gameplay walkthroughs. Our dataset focuses on the assessment of functional commonsense knowledge rules rather than factual knowledge. Experiments show that the introduced dataset is challenging to previous machine reading models as well as the new large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T19:20:53Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.