Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

GameArena: Evaluating LLM Reasoning through Live Computer Games

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.06394 v5 pith:Y2QNNRKV submitted 2024-12-09 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords reasoningcapabilitiesgamearenadatallmsabilitiesarenabenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) is challenging. Existing benchmarks often depend on static datasets, which are vulnerable to data contamination and may get saturated over time, or on binary live human feedback that conflates reasoning with other abilities. As the most prominent dynamic benchmark, Chatbot Arena evaluates open-ended questions in real-world settings, but lacks the granularity in assessing specific reasoning capabilities. We introduce GameArena, a dynamic benchmark designed to evaluate LLM reasoning capabilities through interactive gameplay with humans. GameArena consists of three games designed to test specific reasoning capabilities (e.g., deductive and inductive reasoning), while keeping participants entertained and engaged. We analyze the gaming data retrospectively to uncover the underlying reasoning processes of LLMs and measure their fine-grained reasoning capabilities. We collect over 2000 game sessions and provide detailed assessments of various reasoning capabilities for five state-of-the-art LLMs. Our user study with 100 participants suggests that GameArena improves user engagement compared to Chatbot Arena. For the first time, GameArena enables the collection of step-by-step LLM reasoning data in the wild.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. lmgame-Bench: How Good are LLMs at Playing Games?

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    lmgame-Bench turns six classic games into a scaffolded LLM evaluation suite, ranks 13 models, detects contamination, and reports RL transfer from Sokoban or Tetris to unseen games and planning tasks.

  2. TextAtari: 100K Frames Game Playing with Language Agents

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TextAtari is a text-based Atari benchmark for language agents; 7-8B LLMs stay below 10% of human scores in over 90% of tested conditions, and knowledge injection helps more than chain-of-thought.

  3. KORGym: A Dynamic Game Platform for LLM Reasoning Evaluation

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    KORGym introduces a 51-game, text and visual, multi-turn benchmark with a normalized scoring scheme, and uses it to compare 19 LLMs and 8 VLMs on six reasoning dimensions.

  4. Game Reasoning Arena: A Framework and Benchmark for Assessing Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models via Game Play

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Game Reasoning Arena is a modular OpenSpiel-based framework for benchmarking LLM decision making in games, with exploratory analyses suggesting models adapt their verbalized reasoning to game structure and model size.

  5. Tracing LLM Reasoning Processes with Strategic Games: A Framework for Planning, Revision, and Resource-Constrained Decision Making

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a new three-game benchmark tracking planning, revision, and budget use across 12 LLMs, ChatGPT-o3-mini ranked highest, while overcorrecting models such as Qwen-Plus won few matches.

  6. Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that classifies AI agent evaluation benchmarks along environment and capability axes, and proposes five traits that distinguish agents from chatbots.

Pith tools