Benchmark Almanac

ComplexBench

Not in model cards

Models answer 1,150 hand-written Chinese instructions that compose several constraints by chaining, selection and nesting. LLM evaluators with rules check each constraint, and scores follow the dependency structure.

Taxonomy of 4 constraint types, 19 dimensions and 4 composition types. NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks. Data ships in the repo with English translations.

In the authors’ words

Instruction following is one of the fundamental capabilities of large language models (LLMs). As the ability of LLMs is constantly improving, they have been increasingly applied to deal with complex human instructions in real-world scenarios. Therefore, how to evaluate the ability of complex instruction-following of LLMs has become a critical research problem. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on modeling different types of constraints in human instructions while neglecting the composition of different constraints, which is an indispensable constituent in complex instructions. To this end, we propose ComplexBench, a benchmark for comprehensively evaluating the ability of LLMs to follow complex instructions composed of multiple constraints. We propose a hierarchical taxonomy for complex instructions, including 4 constraint types, 19 constraint dimensions, and 4 composition types, and manually collect a high-quality dataset accordingly. To make the evaluation reliable, we augment LLM-based evaluators with rules to effectively verify whether generated texts can satisfy each constraint and composition. Furthermore, we obtain the final evaluation score based on the dependency structure determined by different composition types. ComplexBench identifies significant deficiencies in existing LLMs when dealing with complex instructions with multiple constraints composition.

Abstract of Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Composition (arXiv:2407.03978, CC0)
Made by Tsinghua University (CoAI) and Zhipu AI Released Jul 2024 Following precise instructions All tasks public
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.

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for ComplexBench yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

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%