Benchmark Almanac

Learn2Play Bench

Claude Opus 5 81.8 leads since October 2026
Not in model cards

Agents play unfamiliar games whose rules are not given and must learn from experience across episodes. Improvement over repeated play is the measure.

55 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.

Released
October 2026
Kind
Puzzles and chess
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last model added
September 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Learning from experience is essential for LLM agents to adapt to unfamiliar and dynmaic environments. Evaluating this ability is therefore important for understanding how effectively agents acquire and use new knowledge. Existing benchmarks have sought to evaluate this ability, but they primarily evaluate tasks whose rules are provided in the instructions or already familiar to pretrained models, making it difficult to distinguish learning from interactions from reasoning with existing knowledge. To address this, we introduce Learn2Play Bench, a benchmark of newly designed text-based games, whose rules are novel or counterintuitive, requiring agents to acquire knowledge through interaction rather than rely solely on pretrained knowledge. These games provide reproducible feedback and automatic scoring, enabling controlled evaluation of learning across repeated attempts. We also vary game instances to test whether agents can apply what they have learned to new situations. Therefore, we evaluate how backbone models, self-evolving methods, and agent harnesses affect agents' learning ability, revealing three findings: (1) Experience retention: Retaining complete records of actions and feedback can support more effective learning than summarizing these experiences into rules or strategies. (2) Human agent gap: Top-performing human players achieve higher peak scores than the evaluated agents. Human explore more varied strategies, and repeat actions less. (3) Harness matters: With the backbone fixed, changing the harness can improve performance while reducing estimated inference cost. Together, these findings provide insights into how LLM agents learn from experience and suggest directions for future work to improve their learning ability. Project website: https://liushiliushi.github.io/learn2play-bench-website/

Abstract of Learn2Play Bench: How Well Do LLM Agents Learn from Experience in Unfamiliar Environments? (arXiv:2610.08215, CC0)
11
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Opus 5 leads with 81.8 among models released by September 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.

The newest model with a score here came out in September 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 5 81.8
  2. 2 Claude Opus 5.5 80.1
  3. 3 GPT-6 Astra 76.3
  4. 4 GPT-5.6 Sol 74.3
  5. 5 Qwen 3.8 Max 72.5
  6. 6 Gemini 3.5 Flash 72.0
  7. 7 Kimi K3 68.5
  8. 8 Gemini 3.7 Flash 58.3
  9. 9 Claude Sonnet 5 55.9
  10. 10 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 54.1
  11. 11 GPT-5 mini 53.5

Source: Official Learn2Play Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5 81.8 Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 5.5 80.1 OpenCode Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-6 Astra 76.3 OpenCode Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.6 Sol 74.3 Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen 3.8 Max 72.5 OpenCode Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 3.5 Flash 72.0 OpenCode May 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Kimi K3 68.5 OpenCode Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3.7 Flash 58.3 OpenCode Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Sonnet 5 55.9 OpenCode Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 54.1 OpenCode Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5 mini 53.5 Reflexion Aug 2025 Official leaderboard

Performance versus episode cost

The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

40% 60% 80% 100% $0.001$0.01$0.1$1$10 Mean cost per completed episode ($), log scale, lower is better Normalized maximum GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 47%, mean cost per completed episode $0.04 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 47.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.06 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 48.7%, mean cost per completed episode $0.05 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 48.8%, mean cost per completed episode $0.04 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 51.9%, mean cost per completed episode $0.09 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 53.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.04 Gemini 3.5 Flash: Normalized maximum 72%, mean cost per completed episode $0.6 Claude Sonnet 5: Normalized maximum 55.9%, mean cost per completed episode $1.33 GPT-5.6 Sol: Normalized maximum 57%, mean cost per completed episode $0.12 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 56.1%, mean cost per completed episode $0.22 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 62.4%, mean cost per completed episode $0.66 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 63.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.59 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 54.7%, mean cost per completed episode $0.25 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 59.9%, mean cost per completed episode $0.34 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 61.6%, mean cost per completed episode $0.3 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 68.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.31 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 50.6%, mean cost per completed episode $0.42 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 66.2%, mean cost per completed episode $1.17 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 60.9%, mean cost per completed episode $3.09 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 53.4%, mean cost per completed episode $0.8 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 60.2%, mean cost per completed episode $0.86 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 64.8%, mean cost per completed episode $0.79 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 74.5%, mean cost per completed episode $2.57 Qwen 3.8 Max: Normalized maximum 72.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.22 Claude Opus 5.5: Normalized maximum 80.1%, mean cost per completed episode $1.06 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 34%, mean cost per completed episode $0.006 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Normalized maximum 54.1%, mean cost per completed episode $0.02 GPT-5.6 Sol: Normalized maximum 74.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.14 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 81.8%, mean cost per completed episode $0.65 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Normalized maximum 58.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.05 GPT-6 Astra: Normalized maximum 76.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.25 Claude Opus 5GPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.7 FlashDeepSeek-V4-ProGPT-5 mini 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.001$0.01$0.1$1$10 Mean cost per completed episode ($), log scale, lower is better Normalized maximum GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 47%, mean cost per completed episode $0.04 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 47.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.06 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 48.7%, mean cost per completed episode $0.05 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 48.8%, mean cost per completed episode $0.04 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 51.9%, mean cost per completed episode $0.09 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 53.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.04 Gemini 3.5 Flash: Normalized maximum 72%, mean cost per completed episode $0.6 Claude Sonnet 5: Normalized maximum 55.9%, mean cost per completed episode $1.33 GPT-5.6 Sol: Normalized maximum 57%, mean cost per completed episode $0.12 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 56.1%, mean cost per completed episode $0.22 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 62.4%, mean cost per completed episode $0.66 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 63.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.59 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 54.7%, mean cost per completed episode $0.25 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 59.9%, mean cost per completed episode $0.34 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 61.6%, mean cost per completed episode $0.3 Kimi K3: Normalized maximum 68.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.31 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 50.6%, mean cost per completed episode $0.42 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 66.2%, mean cost per completed episode $1.17 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 60.9%, mean cost per completed episode $3.09 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 53.4%, mean cost per completed episode $0.8 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 60.2%, mean cost per completed episode $0.86 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 64.8%, mean cost per completed episode $0.79 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 74.5%, mean cost per completed episode $2.57 Qwen 3.8 Max: Normalized maximum 72.5%, mean cost per completed episode $0.22 Claude Opus 5.5: Normalized maximum 80.1%, mean cost per completed episode $1.06 GPT-5 mini: Normalized maximum 34%, mean cost per completed episode $0.006 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Normalized maximum 54.1%, mean cost per completed episode $0.02 GPT-5.6 Sol: Normalized maximum 74.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.14 Claude Opus 5: Normalized maximum 81.8%, mean cost per completed episode $0.65 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Normalized maximum 58.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.05 GPT-6 Astra: Normalized maximum 76.3%, mean cost per completed episode $0.25 Claude Opus 5GPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.7 FlashDeepSeek-V4-ProGPT-5 mini
ModelSettingNormalized maximumMean cost per completed episode
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 81.8% $0.65
Claude Opus 5.5 OpenCode 80.1% $1.06
GPT-6 Astra OpenCode 76.3% $0.25
Claude Opus 5 OpenCode 74.5% $2.57
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 74.3% $0.14
Qwen 3.8 Max OpenCode 72.5% $0.22
Gemini 3.5 Flash OpenCode 72% $0.6
Kimi K3 OpenCode 68.5% $0.31
Claude Opus 5 EvoTest 66.2% $1.17
Claude Opus 5 Reflexion 64.8% $0.79
Kimi K3 Memory 63.3% $0.59
Kimi K3 EvoTest 62.4% $0.66
Kimi K3 Reflexion 61.6% $0.3
Claude Opus 5 Memory 60.9% $3.09
Claude Opus 5 ReasoningBank 60.2% $0.86
Kimi K3 ReasoningBank 59.9% $0.34
Gemini 3.7 Flash OpenCode 58.3% $0.05
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenCode 57% $0.12
Kimi K3 AWM 56.1% $0.22
Claude Sonnet 5 OpenCode 55.9% $1.33
Kimi K3 Naive 54.7% $0.25
DeepSeek-V4-Pro OpenCode 54.2% $0.02
GPT-5 mini Reflexion 53.5% $0.04
Claude Opus 5 Naive 53.4% $0.8
GPT-5 mini ReasoningBank 51.9% $0.09
Claude Opus 5 AWM 50.7% $0.42
GPT-5 mini Naive 48.8% $0.04
GPT-5 mini Memory 48.7% $0.05
GPT-5 mini EvoTest 47.5% $0.06
GPT-5 mini AWM 47% $0.04
GPT-5 mini OpenCode 34% $0.01

The best score, 81.8, costs $0.65 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

OpenAI DeepSeek Anthropic Google DeepMind Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0.00 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 GPT-6 Astra Gemini 3.7 Flash DeepSeek-V4-Pro GPT-5 mini 0.00 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 GPT-6 Astra

Source: Official Learn2Play Bench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 81.8 $0.65
Claude Opus 5.5 OpenCode 80.1 $1.06
GPT-6 Astra OpenCode 76.3 $0.25
Claude Opus 5 OpenCode 74.5 $2.57
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 74.3 $0.14
Qwen 3.8 Max OpenCode 72.5 $0.22
Gemini 3.5 Flash OpenCode 72.0 $0.60
Kimi K3 OpenCode 68.5 $0.31
Claude Opus 5 EvoTest 66.2 $1.17
Claude Opus 5 Reflexion 64.8 $0.79
Kimi K3 Memory 63.3 $0.59
Kimi K3 EvoTest 62.4 $0.66
Kimi K3 Reflexion 61.6 $0.30
Claude Opus 5 Memory 60.9 $3.09
Claude Opus 5 ReasoningBank 60.2 $0.86
Kimi K3 ReasoningBank 59.9 $0.34
Gemini 3.7 Flash OpenCode 58.3 $0.05
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenCode 57.0 $0.12
Kimi K3 AWM 56.1 $0.22
Claude Sonnet 5 OpenCode 55.9 $1.33
Kimi K3 Naive 54.7 $0.25
DeepSeek-V4-Pro OpenCode 54.1 $0.02
GPT-5 mini Reflexion 53.5 $0.04
Claude Opus 5 Naive 53.4 $0.80
GPT-5 mini ReasoningBank 51.9 $0.09
Claude Opus 5 AWM 50.6 $0.42
GPT-5 mini Naive 48.8 $0.04
GPT-5 mini Memory 48.7 $0.05
GPT-5 mini EvoTest 47.5 $0.06
GPT-5 mini AWM 47.0 $0.04
GPT-5 mini OpenCode 34.0 $0.006

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard 1 leader

Source: Official Learn2Play Bench leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
40.0 60.0 80.0 2026 40.0 60.0 80.0 2026

Source: Official Learn2Play Bench leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Games and long tasks

All 82 in Games and long tasks
  • ARC-AGI-3 In use Interactive game environments where agents must explore, infer goals and rules, and act efficiently without instructions. GPT-6 Astra 99.95%
  • Orak Fading LLM agents play 12 popular video games across most genres through an MCP interface. Each game scores in-game progress or outcomes, and the board ranks models by their average rank across the games. Gemini 2.5 Pro 3.90
  • MineDojo Fading Agents complete open-ended tasks in Minecraft, such as mining blocks and fighting mobs, from a large simulation suite. Programmatic checks score many tasks. Seed2.0 Pro 49%
  • TextQuests Only in system cards Agents play 25 classic interactive fiction games. The score is harmful actions per 100 steps, where lower is better. The board also reports game progress. Llama 4 Scout 7.00
  • GameWorld Only in system cards Multimodal game agents play 34 browser games across 170 tasks. Outcomes are checked from the game state. GPT-6.1 Terra 76.8%
  • Swarm Bench Only in system cards Models orchestrate agent swarms on complex tasks that benefit from coordinated decomposition and parallel execution. Kimi K3 76.3%