Benchmark Almanac

MARS-Bench

Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 72.4% tops its leaderboard Claude 3.7 Sonnet 62.3% leads the models we track
Seed2.0 Pro 85.6% leads since February 2026
Fading

Models handle long multi-turn dialogues built from play-by-play sports commentary. Tasks test ultra multi-turn, interactive multi-turn and cross-turn reasoning.

Accepted to EMNLP 2025 Findings. The scoring field is a guess from the abstract.

Released
May 2025
Kind
Multi-turn conversation
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Strongest model tested
o4-mini #94 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
February 2026, dropped after it saturated
Last model added
March 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Large Language Models (LLMs), e.g. ChatGPT, have been widely adopted in real-world dialogue applications. However, LLMs' robustness, especially in handling long complex dialogue sessions, including frequent motivation transfer, sophisticated cross-turn dependency, is criticized all along. Nevertheless, no existing benchmarks can fully reflect these weaknesses. We present MARS-Bench, a Multi-turn Athletic Real-world Scenario Dialogue Benchmark, designed to remedy the gap. MARS-Bench is constructed from play-by-play text commentary so to feature realistic dialogues specifically designed to evaluate three critical aspects of multi-turn conversations: Ultra Multi-turn, Interactive Multi-turn, and Cross-turn Tasks. Extensive experiments on MARS-Bench also reveal that closed-source LLMs significantly outperform open-source alternatives, explicit reasoning significantly boosts LLMs' robustness on handling long complex dialogue sessions, and LLMs indeed face significant challenges when handling motivation transfer and sophisticated cross-turn dependency. Moreover, we provide mechanistic interpretability on how attention sinks due to special tokens lead to LLMs' performance degradation when handling long complex dialogue sessions based on attention visualization experiment in Qwen2.5-7B-Instruction.

Abstract of MARS-Bench: A Multi-turn Athletic Real-world Scenario Benchmark for Dialogue Evaluation (arXiv:2505.23810, CC0)
21
Entries on its own leaderboard, 15 models we track
2
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 72.4%

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. The best model we track is Claude 3.7 Sonnet, at 62.3%.

Seed2.0 Pro leads with 85.6%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in April 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) thinking 72.4%
  2. 2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 62.3%
  3. 3 o1 thinking 59.6%
  4. 4 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) thinking 59.2%
  5. 5 GPT-4.5 53.3%
  6. 6 Doubao-1.5-pro thinking 52.6%
  7. 7 Grok 3 thinking 51.2%
  8. 8 o4-mini thinking 47.1%
  9. 9 DeepSeek-R1 (snapshot unspecified) thinking 45.4%
  10. 10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 43.2%
  11. 11 o3-mini thinking 42.1%
  12. 12 Doubao-1.5-Pro-32k 38.9%
  13. 13 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025, thinking 37.3%
  14. 14 GPT-4o Nov 2024 35.8%
  15. 15 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 35.6%
  16. 16 Qwen3-235B thinking 34.9%
  17. 17 DeepSeek-V3 thinking 33.2%
  18. 18 GPT-4.1 mini 31.2%
  19. 19 Qwen2.5-Max 30.4%
  20. 20 Qwen2.5-72B 29.2%
  21. 21 GLM-Z1-Air thinking 25.8%

Source: Official MARS-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 72.4% thinking Official leaderboard
2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 62.3% thinking Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
3 o1 59.6% thinking Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 59.2% thinking Official leaderboard
5 GPT-4.5 53.3% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Doubao-1.5-pro 52.6% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Grok 3 51.2% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
8 o4-mini 47.1% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
9 DeepSeek-R1 (snapshot unspecified) 45.4% thinking Official leaderboard
10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 43.2% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
11 o3-mini 42.1% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Doubao-1.5-Pro-32k 38.9% Official leaderboard
13 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 37.3% thinking Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-4o Nov 2024 35.8% Nov 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 35.6% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen3-235B 34.9% thinking Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-V3 33.2% thinking Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
18 GPT-4.1 mini 31.2% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Qwen2.5-Max 30.4% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen2.5-72B 29.2% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
21 GLM-Z1-Air 25.8% thinking Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Pro 85.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed1.8 70.1% Dec 2025 Lab model card
3 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 62.3% thinking Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
4 o1 59.6% thinking Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-4.5 53.3% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Doubao-1.5-pro 52.6% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Grok 3 51.2% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
8 o4-mini 47.1% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 43.2% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
10 o3-mini 42.1% thinking Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
11 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 37.3% thinking Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
12 GPT-4o Nov 2024 35.8% Nov 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 35.6% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
14 DeepSeek-V3 33.2% thinking Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
15 GPT-4.1 mini 31.2% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen2.5-Max 30.4% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen2.5-72B 29.2% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 2 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Number one over time 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2025
Lab claims Passed 85% in Feb 2026, by Seed2.0 Pro
Seed2.0 Pro 85.6%

Sources: Official MARS-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

ByteDance Seed’s own number for Seed2.0 Pro passed 85% in February 2026

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% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.8 Claude 3.7 Sonnet Claude 3.5 Sonnet 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.8

Sources: Official MARS-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in February 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.

ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 85.6 MARS-Bench
Dec 18, 2025 Seed1.8 70.1 MARS-Bench

2 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
Mar 21, 2026 Seed1.8 model card 70.1 MARS-Bench (Table 1) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 85.6 MARS-Bench (Table 3) Capabilities

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%