Benchmark Almanac

RealCompanion

Not in model cards

Models read months of real chats between ten people and an AI companion, then answer questions about who each person is. The release has 27,218 messages over up to 120 days.

It had 40 Hugging Face paper upvotes.

In the authors’ words

An AI companion that talks with someone for months should come to understand them. It should know who they are, remember what they said, and recognize when something from the past matters now. Testing this needs real conversations, but real conversations are private, so existing benchmarks use invented people and invented questions. We release RealCompanion, ten real relationships between people and an AI companion, with 27,218 messages over up to 120 days. For each person, we release the full conversation, a profile, a persona, chat test items, and question test items. Every label points to the messages that support it, and every chat label comes with the reasoning that produced it. The real data shows three things. First, people rarely refer back. Only 3.4% of their messages depend on something said earlier, and when one does, the earlier message is usually far away (a median of 2,157 messages back). Averages hide this. Looking at the most recent messages finds the needed one 95.9% of the time overall, but only 2.2% of the time when it is far back. Second, AI systems cannot tell when the past matters. The detectors we tested barely beat chance on real messages, and when the same earlier messages are labeled "memories" instead of "earlier messages", models bring up the past 10 to 14 percentage points more often, even when nothing from the past is needed. Third, AI systems read more into a person than the person revealed. Three agent systems rebuild each persona equally well (F1 0.71). They see the person, and then imagine more. Understanding a person depends on knowing when their past matters and where what they shared ends, and only real conversations can test it.

Abstract of RealCompanion: Benchmarking Human Understanding from Reasoning over Longitudinal Real-World Conversations (arXiv:2610.01780, CC0)
Made by Quis Lab Released Oct 2026 Multi-turn conversation All tasks public
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
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.

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for RealCompanion 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%