Benchmark Almanac

MathIF

Qwen3-14B 50.7% leads since May 2025 Not in model cards

Reasoning models solve 420 math problems from GSM8K, MATH-500, Minerva, Olympiad and AIME while obeying added verifiable instructions. Code checks the instructions and the answer.

Shows that stronger reasoning often lowers instruction adherence. 63 Hugging Face paper upvotes.

In the authors’ words

Instruction-following is essential for aligning large language models (LLMs) with user intent. While recent reasoning-oriented models exhibit impressive performance on complex mathematical problems, their ability to adhere to natural language instructions remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce MathIF, a dedicated benchmark for evaluating instruction-following in mathematical reasoning tasks. Our empirical analysis reveals a consistent tension between scaling up reasoning capacity and maintaining controllability, as models that reason more effectively often struggle to comply with user directives. We find that models tuned on distilled long chains-of-thought or trained with reasoning-oriented reinforcement learning often degrade in instruction adherence, especially when generation length increases. Furthermore, we show that even simple interventions can partially recover obedience, though at the cost of reasoning performance. These findings highlight a fundamental tension in current LLM training paradigms and motivate the need for more instruction-aware reasoning models. We release the code and data at https://github.com/TingchenFu/MathIF.

Abstract of Scaling Reasoning, Losing Control: Evaluating Instruction Following in Large Reasoning Models (arXiv:2505.14810, CC0)
Made by Renmin University of China , Shanghai AI Laboratory and CUHK Released May 2025 Following precise instructions All tasks public Last model added Apr 2025 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
School Students, from grade school to high school
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
23
Entries on its own leaderboard, 12 models we track

Qwen3-14B leads with 50.7% 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 Qwen3-14B 50.7%
  2. 2 Qwen3-4B 44%
  3. 3 Qwen3-32B 43.8%
  4. 4 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 42.6%
  5. 5 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B 41.4%
  6. 6 QwQ-32B 40.2%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B 39.3%
  8. 8 Qwen3-8B 37.9%
  9. 9 OlympicCoder-32B 36%
  10. 10 Qwen3-1.7B 30.2%
  11. 11 Qwen3-0.6B 27.9%
  12. 12 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B 26.4%
  13. 13 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B 22.1%
  14. 14 s1-32B 20.9%
  15. 15 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Exact 19.8%
  16. 16 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Max 19.8%
  17. 17 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B 17.1%
  18. 18 Open-Reasoner-Zero-32B 15.5%
  19. 19 DeepScaler-1.5B-Preview 14.5%
  20. 20 Open-Reasoner-Zero-7B 13.6%
  21. 21 Qwen2.5-1.5B-SimpleRL-Zoo 9.05%
  22. 22 Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct 9.05%
  23. 23 Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct 7.62%
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3-14B 50.7% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen3-4B 44% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen3-32B 43.8% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
4 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 42.6% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B 41.4% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
6 QwQ-32B 40.2% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B 39.3% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen3-8B 37.9% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
9 OlympicCoder-32B 36% Official leaderboard
10 Qwen3-1.7B 30.2% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen3-0.6B 27.9% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
12 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B 26.4% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
13 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B 22.1% Official leaderboard
14 s1-32B 20.9% Official leaderboard
15 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Exact 19.8% Official leaderboard
16 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Max 19.8% Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B 17.1% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Open-Reasoner-Zero-32B 15.5% Official leaderboard
19 DeepScaler-1.5B-Preview 14.5% Official leaderboard
20 Open-Reasoner-Zero-7B 13.6% Official leaderboard
21 Qwen2.5-1.5B-SimpleRL-Zoo 9.05% Official leaderboard
22 Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct 9.05% Official leaderboard
23 Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct 7.62% Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2025
Qwen3-14B 50.7%

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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3-14B DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3-14B DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B

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%