Benchmark Almanac

ProcBench

Fading

Models follow explicit step-by-step procedures to answer questions, which isolates multi-step inference from knowledge and search.

It is a different test from TOD-ProcBench.

Made by
Fujisawa et al.
Released
October 2024
Kind
Abstract puzzles and logic
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Last in a launch post
February 2026, dropped after it saturated
Last model added
February 2026

In the authors’ words

Reasoning is central to a wide range of intellectual activities, and while the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, their performance in reasoning tasks remains limited. The processes and mechanisms underlying reasoning are not yet fully understood, but key elements include path exploration, selection of relevant knowledge, and multi-step inference. Problems are solved through the synthesis of these components. In this paper, we propose a benchmark that focuses on a specific aspect of reasoning ability: the direct evaluation of multi-step inference. To this end, we design a special reasoning task where multi-step inference is specifically focused by largely eliminating path exploration and implicit knowledge utilization. Our dataset comprises pairs of explicit instructions and corresponding questions, where the procedures necessary for solving the questions are entirely detailed within the instructions. This setup allows models to solve problems solely by following the provided directives. By constructing problems that require varying numbers of steps to solve and evaluating responses at each step, we enable a thorough assessment of state-of-the-art LLMs' ability to follow instructions. To ensure the robustness of our evaluation, we include multiple distinct tasks. Furthermore, by comparing accuracy across tasks, utilizing step-aware metrics, and applying separately defined measures of complexity, we conduct experiments that offer insights into the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in reasoning tasks. Our findings have significant implications for the development of LLMs and highlight areas for future research in advancing their reasoning abilities. Our dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ifujisawa/procbench and code at https://github.com/ifujisawa/proc-bench.

Abstract of ProcBench: Benchmark for Multi-Step Reasoning and Following Procedure (arXiv:2410.03117, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Seed2.0 Pro leads with 96.6%

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 Seed2.0 Pro 96.6%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Pro 96.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card

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.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro

Source: 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 96.6 ProcBench

One system card reports it

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
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 96.6 ProcBench (Table 3) Capabilities

More in Science and reasoning

All 92 in Science and reasoning
  • GPQA Diamond In use 198 graduate-level 'Google-proof' multiple-choice questions in biology, chemistry and physics. Gemini 4 Carbon 96.5%
  • Terminal-Bench-Science In use 70 scientific research-workflow tasks across five science areas, run in Harbor containers. Hidden tests give the resolution rate. GPT-6 Astra 68.1%
  • FrontierScience In use Models solve physics, chemistry, and biology problems in an Olympiad track graded by short answer and a Research track graded by 10-point rubrics. Intern-S2-397B 87%
  • BioMysteryBench In use Bioinformatics problems on anonymized real datasets that require real analysis with tools. Rubric-graded, with human-solvable and human-difficult splits. Claude Fable 5.2 83.7%
  • HiPhO In use Models solve theory problems from 2024 and 2025 physics olympiad exams, some with diagrams. Official marking schemes grade answers and steps, mapped to medal levels. Gemini 3 Pro 78.3%
  • LABBench2 In use 11 biology research sub-tasks (literature, figures, tables, patents, trials and more) with tool access. Macro-averaged accuracy. GPT-5.2 60.9%