ConStory-Bench
Models write long stories, up to tens of thousands of words, from 2,000 prompts in four task types. An automated checker, ConStory-Checker, finds contradictions in facts, timelines, characters and world rules and cites the passages behind each one. Scores count consistency errors, using a taxonomy of 5 categories and 19 subtypes.
The checker is itself an LLM pipeline, so its error counts carry judge bias. The paper finds errors cluster in the middle of stories. The paper had 52 Hugging Face upvotes and the repository about 190 GitHub stars on November 5th, 2026.
- Made by
- Microsoft and Singapore University of Technology and Design
- Released
- March 2026
- Kind
- Creative writing
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
- Last model added
- October 2025
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
What happens when a storyteller forgets its own story? Large Language Models (LLMs) can now generate narratives spanning tens of thousands of words, but they often fail to maintain consistency throughout. When generating long-form narratives, these models can contradict their own established facts, character traits, and world rules. Existing story generation benchmarks focus mainly on plot quality and fluency, leaving consistency errors largely unexplored. To address this gap, we present ConStory-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate narrative consistency in long-form story generation. It contains 2,000 prompts across four task scenarios and defines a taxonomy of five error categories with 19 fine-grained subtypes. We also develop ConStory-Checker, an automated pipeline that detects contradictions and grounds each judgment in explicit textual evidence. Evaluating a range of LLMs through five research questions, we find that consistency errors show clear tendencies: they are most common in factual and temporal dimensions, tend to appear around the middle of narratives, occur in text segments with higher token-level entropy, and certain error types tend to co-occur. These findings can inform future efforts to improve consistency in long-form narrative generation. Our project page is available at https://picrew.github.io/constory-bench.github.io/.
GPT-5 leads with 0.11 among models released by October 2025
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 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 October 2025, 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 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1 GPT-5 reasoning 0.11
- 2 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 0.30
- 3 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 0.30
- 4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 0.52
- 5 GLM-4.6 0.53
- 6
Qwen3-32B 0.54
- 7
Ring-1T 0.54
- 8
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp 0.54
- 9
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 0.56
- 10 GLM-4.5 0.59
- 11 LongWriter-Zero-32B 0.67
- 12 Grok 4 0.67
- 13 SuperWriter 0.67
- 14 Ling-1T 0.70
- 15 GPT-4o-1120 0.71
- 16
Step 3 0.84
- 17 Qwen3-Next-80B-Thinking 0.96
- 18 DOME 1.03
- 19 Doubao-1.6-Thinking-2507 1.22
- 20 Kimi-K2-2509 1.30
- 21 Kimi-K2-2507 1.33
- 22
Mistral Medium 3.1 1.35
- 23
Qwen3-235B-A22B 1.45
- 24 Qwen3-Next-80B 1.60
- 25 qwen3-4b-instruct-2507 1.69
- 26 Nvidia-Llama-3.1-Ultra 1.83
- 27 Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 2.13
- 28 DeepSeek-V3 (snapshot unspecified) 2.42
- 29 Suri-ORPO 2.44
- 30 QwenLong-L1-32B 3.41
- 31 DeepSeek-R1 (snapshot unspecified) 3.42
- 32
MiniMax-M1-80k 3.45
- 33 LongAlign-13B 3.66
Source: Official ConStory-Bench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5 | 0.11 | reasoning | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 0.30 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) | 0.30 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 0.52 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GLM-4.6 | 0.53 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 0.54 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 0.54 | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 0.54 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 0.56 | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GLM-4.5 | 0.59 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | LongWriter-Zero-32B | 0.67 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 12 | Grok 4 | 0.67 | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | SuperWriter | 0.67 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | Ling-1T | 0.70 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | GPT-4o-1120 | 0.71 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | | 0.84 | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Qwen3-Next-80B-Thinking | 0.96 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | DOME | 1.03 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Doubao-1.6-Thinking-2507 | 1.22 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | Kimi-K2-2509 | 1.30 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | Kimi-K2-2507 | 1.33 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | | 1.35 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 1.45 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | Qwen3-Next-80B | 1.60 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | qwen3-4b-instruct-2507 | 1.69 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | Nvidia-Llama-3.1-Ultra | 1.83 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 27 | Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 | 2.13 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 28 | DeepSeek-V3 (snapshot unspecified) | 2.42 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 29 | Suri-ORPO | 2.44 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 30 | QwenLong-L1-32B | 3.41 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 31 | DeepSeek-R1 (snapshot unspecified) | 3.42 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 32 | | 3.45 | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 33 | LongAlign-13B | 3.66 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official ConStory-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 ConStory-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 Writing and taste
- Design Bench (Moonshot) In use Models make graphic designs from direct prompts or few-shot reference images. An automated grader rates the results as Elo scores. Kimi K3.1 Pro 957
- WritingBench Fading Models complete 1,000 real-world writing requests across 6 domains and 100 subdomains. A judge model scores each reply on five query-specific criteria. GPT-5 83.9
- Creative Writing (MiniMax in-house) Only in system cards Models write creative pieces for real Hailuo AI user requests. Automatic assessments score the writing.
MiniMax-Text-01 81.3%
- DeepSeek Chinese functional writing evaluation Only in system cards Models answer 3,170 everyday Chinese writing prompts such as reports, emails and speeches. Pairwise judging against a baseline model gives a win rate.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 62.6%
- Slide generation human evaluation (Z.ai) Only in system cards People compare HTML slide decks from two models on content, layout and visual quality. Metric is overall win rate. GLM-5 67.5%
- Task-dependent output homogenization evaluation Only in system cards Models answer prompts several times. A judge scores functional diversity where it is wanted and consistency where one answer is right.
Muse Spark 0.21