HFEPX · Eval paper review
Ojas Jain, Dhruv Kumar
Published
Apr 7, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
27/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
55% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Apr 7, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
No major weakness surfaced.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
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/
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"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."
Simulation Env
Includes extracted eval setup.
"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."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"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
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"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."
Dice
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"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."
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.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Simulation Env
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: Ludobench
Metric reporting is present
Detected: dice
