# Rule Synergy Analysis using LLMs: State of the Art and Implications

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19484 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19484/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 7 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Aug 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Large Language Models and Games: A Survey and Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18659/) (2024)
- [Level Generation Through Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05817/) (2023)
- [MarioGPT: Open-Ended Text2Level Generation through Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05981/) (2023)
- [BoardgameQA: A Dataset for Natural Language Reasoning with Contradictory Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.07934/) (2023)
- [TRAM: Benchmarking Temporal Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00835/) (2023)
- [Towards Benchmarking and Improving the Temporal Reasoning Capability of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08952/) (2023)
- [TaskLAMA: Probing the Complex Task Understanding of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.15299/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [From Gameplay Traces to Game Mechanics: Causal Induction with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00190/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a variety of domains, including logical reasoning, mathematics, and more. In this paper, we investigate how well LLMs understand and reason about complex rule interactions in dynamic environments, such as card games. We introduce a dataset of card synergies from the game Slay the Spire, where pairs of cards are classified based on their positive, negative, or neutral interactions. Our evaluation shows that while LLMs excel at identifying non-synergistic pairs, they struggle with detecting positive and, particularly, negative synergies. We categorize common error types, including issues with timing, defining game states, and following game rules. Our findings suggest directions for future research to improve model performance in predicting the effect of rules and their interactions.