MathIF
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.
- 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.
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:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 50.7
Qwen3-14B
- 44.0
Qwen3-4B
- 43.8
Qwen3-32B
- 42.6
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
- 41.4
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B
- 40.2
QwQ-32B
- 39.3
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B
- 37.9
Qwen3-8B
- 36.0 OlympicCoder-32B
- 30.2
Qwen3-1.7B
- 27.9
Qwen3-0.6B
- 26.4
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
- 22.1 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B
- 20.9 s1-32B
- 19.8 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Exact
- 19.8 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Max
- 17.1
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
- 15.5 Open-Reasoner-Zero-32B
- 14.5 DeepScaler-1.5B-Preview
- 13.6 Open-Reasoner-Zero-7B
- 9.05 Qwen2.5-1.5B-SimpleRL-Zoo
- 9.05 Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct
- 7.62 Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct
- 1
Qwen3-14B 50.7%
- 2
Qwen3-4B 44%
- 3
Qwen3-32B 43.8%
- 4
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 42.6%
- 5
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B 41.4%
- 6
QwQ-32B 40.2%
- 7
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B 39.3%
- 8
Qwen3-8B 37.9%
- 9 OlympicCoder-32B 36%
- 10
Qwen3-1.7B 30.2%
- 11
Qwen3-0.6B 27.9%
- 12
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B 26.4%
- 13 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B 22.1%
- 14 s1-32B 20.9%
- 15 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Exact 19.8%
- 16 L1-Qwen-1.5B-Max 19.8%
- 17
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B 17.1%
- 18 Open-Reasoner-Zero-32B 15.5%
- 19 DeepScaler-1.5B-Preview 14.5%
- 20 Open-Reasoner-Zero-7B 13.6%
- 21 Qwen2.5-1.5B-SimpleRL-Zoo 9.05%
- 22 Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct 9.05%
- 23 Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct 7.62%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 50.7% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 44% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 43.8% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 42.6% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 41.4% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 40.2% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 39.3% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 37.9% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | OlympicCoder-32B | 36% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | | 30.2% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 27.9% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 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 | | 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.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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
- 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%