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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05681v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 10:34:13 GMT
• Title: LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo
• Abstract summary: LudoBench is a benchmark for evaluating strategic reasoning in Ludo, a multi-agent board game.<n>LudoBench comprises 480 handcrafted spot scenarios across 12 behaviorally distinct decision categories.<n>All models agree with the game-theory baseline only 40-46% of the time.
• Score: 1.5718921092089344
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce LudoBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM strategic reasoning in Ludo, a stochastic multi-agent board game whose dice mechanics, piece capture, safe-square navigation, and home-path progression introduce meaningful planning complexity. LudoBench comprises 480 handcrafted spot scenarios across 12 behaviorally distinct decision categories, each isolating a specific strategic choice. We additionally contribute a fully functional 4-player Ludo simulator supporting Random, Heuristic, Game-Theory, and LLM agents. The game-theory agent uses Expectiminimax search with depth-limited lookahead to provide a principled strategic ceiling beyond greedy heuristics. Evaluating six models spanning four model families, we find that all models agree with the game-theory baseline only 40-46% of the time. Models split into distinct behavioral archetypes: finishers that complete pieces but neglect development, and builders that develop but never finish. Each archetype captures only half of the game theory strategy. Models also display measurable behavioral shifts under history-conditioned grudge framing on identical board states, revealing prompt-sensitivity as a key vulnerability. LudoBench provides a lightweight and interpretable framework for benchmarking LLM strategic reasoning under uncertainty. All code, the spot dataset (480 entries) and model outputs are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LudoBench-5CBF/

Related papers

• Can Agents Deceive? Evaluating Reasoning and Deception in ParliamentBench using a Social Deduction Game [23.840355539083372]
  Large language models (LLMs) are deployed as agents in high-stakes settings, such as medical and legal systems.<n>We evaluate LLMs in scenarios that require deception, persuasion, and reasoning under information asymmetry.<n>We introduce three novel metrics that isolate social deduction, reasoning, and deceptive consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T12:54:17Z)
• MINDGAMES: A Live Arena for Evaluating Social and Strategic Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMs [54.81359054218573]
  We introduce Mindgames, a multi-game arena and evaluation platform for large language models (LLMs)<n>Mindgames provides a unified interaction interface, TrueSkill-based rating, and full trajectory logging across four game environments.<n>We analyze 29,571 multi-agent games with turn-level observations, actions, and rewards, together with MG-Ref, a deterministic offline tournament protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T07:33:47Z)
• Beyond Survival: Evaluating LLMs in Social Deduction Games with Human-Aligned Strategies [54.08697738311866]
  Social deduction games like Werewolf combine language, reasoning, and strategy.<n>We curate a high-quality, human-verified multimodal Werewolf dataset containing over 100 hours of video, 32.4M utterance tokens, and 15 rule variants.<n>We propose a novel strategy-alignment evaluation that leverages the winning faction's strategies as ground truth in two stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:33:30Z)
• Do LLMs Know When to Flip a Coin? Strategic Randomization through Reasoning and Experience [1.7223564681760168]
  Strategic randomization is a key principle in game theory, yet it remains underexplored in large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose a novel zero-sum game inspired by the Tian Ji Horse Race, where the Nash equilibrium corresponds to a maximal entropy strategy.<n>We show that weaker models remain deterministic regardless of prompts, while stronger models exhibit increased randomization under explicit hints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T05:26:33Z)
• TMGBench: A Systematic Game Benchmark for Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Abilities of LLMs [45.12542636218608]
  We propose TMGBench, characterized by comprehensive game type coverage, diverse scenarios and flexible game organization.<n>Specifically, we incorporate all 144 game types summarized by the Robinson-Goforth topology of 2x2 games, constructed as classic games in our benchmark.<n>To provide a sustainable evaluation framework adaptable to increasingly powerful LLMs, we treat the aforementioned games as atomic units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T13:15:34Z)
• GameBench: Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Abilities of LLM Agents [4.209869303518743]
  We introduce GameBench, a cross-domain benchmark for evaluating strategic reasoning abilities of large language models. Our evaluations use GPT-3 and GPT-4 in their base form along with two scaffolding frameworks designed to enhance strategic reasoning ability: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and Reasoning Via Planning (RAP) Our results show that none of the tested models match human performance, and at worst GPT-4 performs worse than random action.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T00:28:43Z)
• How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments [83.78240828340681]
  GAMA($gamma$)-Bench is a new framework for evaluating Large Language Models' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent environments.<n>$gamma$-Bench includes eight classical game theory scenarios and a dynamic scoring scheme specially designed to assess LLMs' performance.<n>Our results indicate GPT-3.5 demonstrates strong robustness but limited generalizability, which can be enhanced using methods like Chain-of-Thought.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T14:04:47Z)
• GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations [87.99872683336395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:23:36Z)
• ALYMPICS: LLM Agents Meet Game Theory -- Exploring Strategic Decision-Making with AI Agents [77.34720446306419]
  Alympics is a systematic simulation framework utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) agents for game theory research. Alympics creates a versatile platform for studying complex game theory problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T16:03:46Z)
• Efficient exploration of zero-sum stochastic games [83.28949556413717]
  We investigate the increasingly important and common game-solving setting where we do not have an explicit description of the game but only oracle access to it through gameplay. During a limited-duration learning phase, the algorithm can control the actions of both players in order to try to learn the game and how to play it well. Our motivation is to quickly learn strategies that have low exploitability in situations where evaluating the payoffs of a queried strategy profile is costly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T20:30:38Z)

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.