Learn2Play Bench
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.
- Made by
- National University of Singapore
- 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/
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- and 12 more
- 1 Claude Opus 5 81.8
- 2 Claude Opus 5.5 80.1
- 3 GPT-6 Astra 76.3
- 4 GPT-5.6 Sol 74.3
- 5
Qwen 3.8 Max 72.5
- 6
Gemini 3.5 Flash 72.0
- 7 Kimi K3 68.5
- 8
Gemini 3.7 Flash 58.3
- 9 Claude Sonnet 5 55.9
- 10
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 54.1
- 11 GPT-5 mini 53.5
Source: Official Learn2Play Bench leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | 72.5 | OpenCode | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 72.0 | OpenCode | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Kimi K3 | 68.5 | OpenCode | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 58.3 | OpenCode | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 55.9 | OpenCode | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 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.
| Model | Setting | Normalized maximum | Mean 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 |
| | OpenCode | 72.5% | $0.22 |
| | 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 |
| | 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 |
| | 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.
Source: Official Learn2Play Bench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output 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 | ||
| | OpenCode | 72.5 | $0.22 | ||
| | 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 | ||
| | 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 | ||
| | 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.
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.
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
- 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%