The capability to precisely adhere to instructions is a cornerstone for Large Language Models (LLMs) to function as dependable agents in real-world scenarios. However, confronted with complex prompts, LLMs frequently encounter difficulties in fulfilling all specified requirements within a single response. Drawing inspiration from recent advancements in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and self-correction methodologies, we introduce Meeseeks, a fully automated iterative instruction-following benchmark equipped with an integrated feedback mechanism. Meeseeks identifies erroneous components in model responses and provides corresponding feedback accurately, thereby iteratively guiding the model toward self-correction. The dataset contains over 700 curated instances annotated by 32 distinct capability tags in Chinese and English. Extensive experimental results reveal that different state-of-the-art commercial and open-source LLMs exhibit vastly disparate performance, and even after 20 turns of iterative feedback-driven self-correction, nearly all models demonstrate suboptimal performance. We conducted comprehensive analysis and uncovered numerous common issues prevalent in current state-of-the-art models, as well as several counterintuitive phenomena. Meeseeks has been open-sourced on https://github.com/ADoublLEN/Meeseeks.

As large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as domain-specific agents, many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate their ability to follow instructions and make decisions in real-world scenarios. However, business scenarios often involve complex standard operating procedures (SOPs), and the evaluation of LLM capabilities in such contexts has not been fully explored. To bridge this gap, we propose SOP-Maze, a benchmark constructed from real-world business data and adapted into a collection of 397 instances and 3422 subtasks from 23 complex SOP scenarios. We further categorize SOP tasks into two broad classes: Lateral Root System (LRS), representing wide-option tasks that demand precise selection; and Heart Root System (HRS), which emphasizes deep logical reasoning with complex branches. Extensive experiments reveal that nearly all state-of-the-art models struggle with SOP-Maze. We conduct a comprehensive analysis and identify three key error categories: (i) route blindness: difficulty following procedures; (ii) conversational fragility: inability to handle real dialogue nuances; and (iii) calculation errors: mistakes in time or arithmetic reasoning under complex contexts. The systematic study explores LLM performance across SOP tasks that challenge both breadth and depth, offering new insights for improving model capabilities. We have open-sourced our work on the anonymous link: https://github.com/meituan-longcat/SOP-Maze.

We present AMO-Bench, an Advanced Mathematical reasoning benchmark with Olympiad level or even higher difficulty, comprising 50 human-crafted problems. Existing benchmarks have widely leveraged high school math competitions for evaluating mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, many existing math competitions are becoming less effective for assessing top-tier LLMs due to performance saturation (e.g., AIME24/25). To address this, AMO-Bench introduces more rigorous challenges by ensuring all 50 problems are (1) cross-validated by experts to meet at least the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) difficulty standards, and (2) entirely original problems to prevent potential performance leakages from data memorization. Experimental results across 36 LLMs on AMO-Bench highlights three key findings: (1) high-level mathematical reasoning remains challenging for current LLMs, with even the best-performing model achieving only 63.1% accuracy and most LLMs scoring below 50%; (2) scaling test-time compute remains a highly effective strategy for substantially improving reasoning performances, and (3) open-source models are progressively narrowing the performance gap with proprietary models. Additionally, we conduct further analysis about reasoning efficiency, volatility, and cross-lingual robustness, providing deeper insights behind the reasoning performances.