Benchmark Almanac

ComplexConstraints

GPT-6 Astra 70.8% leads since September 2026
In use

Models answer 75 expert-written professional prompts whose constraints depend on each other, fire conditionally or must be inferred. An LLM judge grades 1,559 rubric criteria one at a time, and a task passes only if all criteria pass.

Surge helped build AdvancedIF and made this to test entangled constraints that AdvancedIF lacks. The repo is an Inspect harness. Its README points to a Hugging Face dataset that returned 401 on November 1st, 2026.

Made by
Surge AI
Released
June 2026
Kind
Following precise instructions
Level
University
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
November 2026
Last model added
November 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Evaluation protocols can lag behind LLM capabilities. Programmatically verified benchmarks cover narrow surface constraints, whereas real-world instruction following and agentic workflows require judging semantic, contextual, and policy-dependent behavior. We study expert-curated rubric-based evaluation as a unified mechanism for measurement and reinforcement-learning rewards across two settings: complex instruction following and enterprise agentic tasks. We identify rubric-design choices that affect reward quality, including maximum viable atomicity, intent-aware criterion design, and LLM-judge calibration. We introduce ComplexConstraints, an expert-curated instruction-following suite comprising a public 75-prompt benchmark with 1,559 rubric criteria and a disjoint 1,000-prompt training set, with 10-40 atomic criteria per prompt. Empirically, rubric rewards improve training in both fixed task datasets, such as ComplexConstraints, and stateful RL environments, such as CoreCraft. Training a 4B model on ComplexConstraints improves mean criterion pass rate by +15.5 pp on a held-out split, bringing it within 0.5 pp of the untrained baseline of a roughly 60x larger Qwen3 model, and the gains transfer to external benchmarks the model never saw during training: +8.4 pp on AdvancedIF and +10.1 pp on MultiChallenge. In CoreCraft, rubric-reward RL likewise transfers to out-of-distribution benchmarks (+4.5 pp BFCL, +7.4 pp tau^2-Bench, +6.8 pp Toolathlon). These results show that expert-authored rubrics provide effective evaluation targets and scalable reward signals for improving LLM instruction following and agentic behavior.

Abstract of ComplexConstraints and Beyond: Expert Rubrics for RLVR (arXiv:2606.09118, CC0)
16
Entries on its own leaderboard, 15 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

GPT-6 Astra leads with 70.8%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 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.

  1. 1 GPT-6 Astra max 70.8%
  2. 2 Gemini 4 Argon high 70.3%
  3. 3 GPT-6.1 Sol max 70.1%
  4. 4 Muse Wonder 1.0 max 67.9%
  5. 5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 adaptive/max 67.2%
  6. 6 Muse Spark 1.3 max 64.8%
  7. 7 Claude Opus 5.5 adaptive/max 64.4%
  8. 8 Gemini 3.8 Flash high 63.2%
  9. 9 Grok 4.7 xhigh 60.8%
  10. 10 Claude Fable 5.1 adaptive/max 60.4%
  11. 11 GLM-5.3 max 54.4%
  12. 12 Kimi K3 max 51.1%
  13. 13 Tencent Hy4 preview high 49.2%
  14. 14 Inkling 2 Small xhigh 47.6%
  15. 15 Qwen 3.8 Max xhigh 46.3%
  16. 16 Mistral Large 4 high 42.4%

Source: Official ComplexConstraints leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Astra 70.8% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 4 Argon 70.3% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-6.1 Sol 70.1% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Muse Wonder 1.0 67.9% max Official leaderboard
5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.2% adaptive/max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Muse Spark 1.3 64.8% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Opus 5.5 64.4% adaptive/max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3.8 Flash 63.2% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Grok 4.7 60.8% xhigh Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Fable 5.1 60.4% adaptive/max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GLM-5.3 54.4% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Kimi K3 51.1% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Tencent Hy4 preview 49.2% high Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Inkling 2 Small 47.6% xhigh Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen 3.8 Max 46.3% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Mistral Large 4 42.4% high Oct 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

5 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in June 2026

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

Moonshot AI Z.ai Anthropic Meta OpenAI
Own leaderboard 5 leaders
GPT-6 Astra 70.8%

Source: Official ComplexConstraints leaderboard

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Astra Muse Spark 1.3 Claude Fable 5.1 GLM-5.3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Astra Claude Fable 5.1

Sources: Official ComplexConstraints leaderboard and labs’ model cards

One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months

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.

Thinking Machines
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Nov 5, 2026 Inkling 2 Small 44.5 ComplexConstraints v1.0

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Inkling 2 Small 44.5% ComplexConstraints v1.0 47.6% Leaderboard, xhigh −3.1 pts

More in Instructions and chat

All 81 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. Gemma 4 31B IT 95.9%