Benchmark Almanac

SysBench

GLM-Z1-32B-0414 81.2% leads since Apr 2025 Fading

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.

Abstract of SysBench: Can Large Language Models Follow System Messages? (arXiv:2408.10943, CC0)
Made by Peking University + Baichuan Released Aug 2024 Following precise instructions All tasks public Last in a launch post Oct 2026 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Oct 2026
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.
6
Models scored in lab cards
4
Launch posts list it, from 4 labs
5
System cards report it, from 4 labs

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. 1 GLM-Z1-32B-0414 81.2%
  2. 2 GLM-4.5 81%
  3. 3 GLM-4.5-Air 77.4%
  4. 4 Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct 76.1%
  5. 5 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B 69.8%
  6. 6 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 67.2%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
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 Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct 76.1% Jun 2025 Model card
5 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B 69.8% Jun 2025 Model card
6 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 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.

Z.ai
Lab claims 1 leader

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) GLM-Z1-32B-0414 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) GLM-Z1-32B-0414

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.

Z.ai
Tencent
Baidu
NVIDIA
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
23 Oct 2026 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 67.2 SysBench
30 Jun 2025 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B 69.8 Sysbench
27 Jun 2025 Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
23 Oct 2026 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B technical report 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 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B technical report 69.8 Sysbench (Table 5) Capabilities
26 Jun 2025 Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct technical report 76.1 SysBench, slow-thinking (Table 3). Fast-thinking 70.2 (Table 4) Capabilities

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%