Benchmark Almanac

AgentIF

o1-mini 59.8% leads since May 2025 In use

Models follow long system prompts from 50 real agentic applications, each with many constraints. Scored by constraint and instruction success rates.

NeurIPS 2025 Datasets and Benchmarks spotlight. The original setting used a gpt-4o-2024-11-20 judge and greedy decoding.

In the authors’ words

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities in real-world agentic applications. Growing research efforts aim to develop LLM-based agents to address practical demands, introducing a new challenge: agentic scenarios often involve lengthy instructions with complex constraints, such as extended system prompts and detailed tool specifications. While adherence to such instructions is crucial for agentic applications, whether LLMs can reliably follow them remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce AgentIF, the first benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM instruction following ability in agentic scenarios. AgentIF features three key characteristics: (1) Realistic, constructed from 50 real-world agentic applications. (2) Long, averaging 1,723 words with a maximum of 15,630 words. (3) Complex, averaging 11.9 constraints per instruction, covering diverse constraint types, such as tool specifications and condition constraints. To construct AgentIF, we collect 707 human-annotated instructions across 50 agentic tasks from industrial application agents and open-source agentic systems. For each instruction, we annotate the associated constraints and corresponding evaluation metrics, including code-based evaluation, LLM-based evaluation, and hybrid code-LLM evaluation. We use AgentIF to systematically evaluate existing advanced LLMs. We observe that current models generally perform poorly, especially in handling complex constraint structures and tool specifications. We further conduct error analysis and analytical experiments on instruction length and meta constraints, providing some findings about the failure modes of existing LLMs. We have released the code and data to facilitate future research.

Abstract of AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarios (arXiv:2505.16944, CC0)
Made by Tsinghua University KEG (THU-KEG) Released May 2025 Following precise instructions All tasks public Last in a launch post Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
15
Entries on its own leaderboard, 12 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

o1-mini leads with 59.8% among models released by Apr 2025

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in Apr 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 o1-mini thinking 59.8%
  2. 2 GPT-4o Nov 2024, non-thinking 58.5%
  3. 3 Qwen3-32B non-thinking 58.4%
  4. 4 QwQ-32B thinking 58.1%
  5. 5 DeepSeek-R1 thinking 57.9%
  6. 6 GLM-Z1-32B thinking 57.8%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025, non-thinking 56.7%
  8. 8 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) non-thinking 56.6%
  9. 9 Llama 3.1-70B non-thinking 56.3%
  10. 10 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B thinking 55.1%
  11. 11 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B thinking 55%
  12. 12 Llama 3.1-8B non-thinking 53.6%
  13. 13 Crab-DPO-7B 47.2%
  14. 14 Mistral 7B v0.3 non-thinking 46.8%
  15. 15 Conifer-DPO-7B 44.3%
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 o1-mini 59.8% thinking Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-4o Nov 2024 58.5% non-thinking Nov 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen3-32B 58.4% non-thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
4 QwQ-32B 58.1% thinking Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-R1 57.9% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
6 GLM-Z1-32B 57.8% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 56.7% non-thinking Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 56.6% non-thinking Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
9 Llama 3.1-70B 56.3% non-thinking Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 55.1% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
11 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B 55% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Llama 3.1-8B 53.6% non-thinking Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Crab-DPO-7B 47.2% May 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Mistral 7B v0.3 46.8% non-thinking Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
15 Conifer-DPO-7B 44.3% May 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

Number one over time

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

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2025
o1-mini 59.8%

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) o1-mini Mistral 7B v0.3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) o1-mini Mistral 7B v0.3

One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

NVIDIA
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
23 Oct 2026 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 22.9 AgentIF

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
23 Oct 2026 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B technical report 22.9 AgentIF, released Q4_K_M imatrix checkpoint (Table 5). BF16 25.81 (Table 3) Capabilities

Versions

We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.

OpenAI DeepSeek
AgentIF (2026-10 setting) 2 leaders
AgentIF 1 leader
o1-mini 59.8%

More in Instructions and chat

All 76 in Instructions and chat
  • IFEval In use Models answer about 500 prompts containing verifiable instructions such as word limits or required keywords. Code checks each instruction for strict and loose accuracy. Gemma 4 31B IT 98.9%
  • IFBench In use 58 new out-of-domain verifiable output constraints. Scored by programmatic constraint checks (strict or loose). Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B 82.9%
  • MultiChallenge In use Multi-turn conversations testing instruction retention, inference memory, versioned editing and self-coherence. Graded by LLM judge with rubrics. GPT-6.1 Sol 82%
  • Multi-IF In use Models follow verifiable instructions over three-turn conversations in eight languages, extending IFEval. Scored by instruction accuracy at each turn. LFM3-1.7B 89.1%
  • AdvancedIF In use Models respond to over 1,600 prompts with complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. A judge model checks each response against expert-written rubrics. MAI-Thinking-1 85%
  • IFStruct In use Models generate JSON or YAML that must follow a requested schema and phrasing constraints, without constrained decoding. A response passes only if every structural constraint holds. LFM3-1.7B 93.7%