arXiv:2610.35773v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: 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.
Abstract: 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.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org