SysBench
Models follow 500 system messages across five user turns each. A model verifier checks constraints, instructions and whole sessions.
Labs usually report ISR, the instruction-level satisfaction rate.
In the authors’ words
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become instrumental across various applications, with the customization of these models to specific scenarios becoming increasingly critical. System message, a fundamental component of LLMs, is consist of carefully crafted instructions that guide the behavior of model to meet intended goals. Despite the recognized potential of system messages to optimize AI-driven solutions, there is a notable absence of a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating how well LLMs follow system messages. To fill this gap, we introduce SysBench, a benchmark that systematically analyzes system message following ability in terms of three limitations of existing LLMs: constraint violation, instruction misjudgement and multi-turn instability. Specifically, we manually construct evaluation dataset based on six prevalent types of constraints, including 500 tailor-designed system messages and multi-turn user conversations covering various interaction relationships. Additionally, we develop a comprehensive evaluation protocol to measure model performance. Finally, we conduct extensive evaluation across various existing LLMs, measuring their ability to follow specified constraints given in system messages. The results highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of existing models, offering key insights and directions for future research. The open source library SysBench is available at https://github.com/PKU-Baichuan-MLSystemLab/SysBench.
- 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.
GLM-Z1-32B-0414 leads with 81.2%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1 GLM-Z1-32B-0414 81.2%
- 2 GLM-4.5 81%
- 3 GLM-4.5-Air 77.4%
- 4
Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct 76.1%
- 5
ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B 69.8%
- 6
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 67.2%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GLM-Z1-32B-0414 | 81.2% | Apr 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | GLM-4.5 | 81% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | GLM-4.5-Air | 77.4% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 76.1% | Jun 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 69.8% | Jun 2025 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 67.2% | Oct 2026 | Model card |
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.
Labs headline it less often now, last in Oct 2026
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | 67.2 | SysBench | |
| 30 Jun 2025 | 69.8 | Sysbench | |
| 27 Jun 2025 | 76.1 | SysBench | |
| 14 Apr 2025 | GLM-Z1-32B-0414 | 81.2 | SysBench (ISR) |
5 system cards report it, from 4 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | | 67.2 | SysBench, released Q4_K_M imatrix checkpoint (Table 5). BF16 67.88 (Table 3) | Capabilities |
| 8 Aug 2025 | GLM-4.5 technical report | 81 | SysBench (ISR) (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| 8 Aug 2025 | GLM-4.5-Air technical report | 77.4 | SysBench (ISR) (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| 29 Jun 2025 | | 69.8 | Sysbench (Table 5) | Capabilities |
| 26 Jun 2025 | | 76.1 | SysBench, slow-thinking (Table 3). Fast-thinking 70.2 (Table 4) | Capabilities |
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%