aiqbench analysis
The paper studies how to give language-model agents better training signals in long strategy games. It argues that in-game scores often mislead ("scoreboard traps"), and it proposes a replay-based LLM judge that predicts long-term outcomes, which the authors use as a dense reward. The results are evaluated on Freeciv, a single game, so readers should treat the gains as promising but not yet shown to transfer to other domains.
Rome Wasn't Built in One Turn: Replay-Grounded Reward Signals for Long-Horizon Freeciv Agents
arXiv:2610.41264v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training language-model agents to play long-horizon strategy games is hard because deterministic feedback is sparse and often arrives only at the end of a game. In-game scores can offer dense signals, but they do not reliably predict future outcomes: in 8-68% of position pairs across eight strategy games, the higher-scoring position leads to the worse outcome. We term this phenomenon scoreboard traps. In Freeciv, an open-source turn-based empire-building game where several players manage units, cities, and diplomacy over hundreds of turns, we look into better reward signals for gameplay agents. To facilitate this, we build CivHarness, an open system that saves current game states, branches on different decisions, and replays the game to future turns to provide measurable long-horizon feedback from saved positions. We use CivHarness to train CivTelescope, an LLM Judge that predicts which one of two game positions will yield the better outcome. On scoreboard-trap pairs, CivTelescope is 1.3-2.0 times more accurate than off-the-shelf language models, and it generalizes to new game starts, later turns, and unseen rules. We then train a Freeciv gameplay agent with CivTelescope as a dense reward, and call this recipe CivMarshmallow. When used in the middle stage of the game where scoreboard traps are common, CivMarshmallow reaches an average training phase gain of 8.94 points, 77% more than the best baseline, the end-of-game reward. Over the full 120-turn game, CivMarshmallow uses a hybrid reward that starts from the scoreboard or the end-of-game reward and shifts to CivTelescope as the game advances; this hybrid reward scores highest among the rewards we compare.
Abstract:Training language-model agents to play long-horizon strategy games is hard because deterministic feedback is sparse and often arrives only at the end of a game. In-game scores can offer dense signals, but they do not reliably predict future outcomes: in 8-68% of position pairs across eight strategy games, the higher-scoring position leads to the worse outcome. We term this phenomenon scoreboard traps. In Freeciv, an open-source turn-based empire-building game where several players manage units, cities, and diplomacy over hundreds of turns, we look into better reward signals for gameplay agents. To facilitate this, we build CivHarness, an open system that saves current game states, branches on different decisions, and replays the game to future turns to provide measurable long-horizon feedback from saved positions. We use CivHarness to train CivTelescope, an LLM Judge that predicts which one of two game positions will yield the better outcome. On scoreboard-trap pairs, CivTelescope is 1.3-2.0 times more accurate than off-the-shelf language models, and it generalizes to new game starts, later turns, and unseen rules. We then train a Freeciv gameplay agent with CivTelescope as a dense reward, and call this recipe CivMarshmallow. When used in the middle stage of the game where scoreboard traps are common, CivMarshmallow reaches an average training phase gain of 8.94 points, 77% more than the best baseline, the end-of-game reward. Over the full 120-turn game, CivMarshmallow uses a hybrid reward that starts from the scoreboard or the end-of-game reward and shifts to CivTelescope as the game advances; this hybrid reward scores highest among the rewards we compare.
22 pages, 3 figures, 12 tables. Code: this https URL ; Checkpoints: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.41264 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.41264v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.41264 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 367 words