activeAgents

MultiChallenge

Metric: % Score (higher is better)

Scale AI benchmark for multi-turn instruction following across instruction retention, inference memory, versioned editing, and self-coherence challenges.

Models ranked

16

tracked on this benchmark

Score band

71.4 – 41.2

best → lowest tracked

Snapshot trend

+15.65

Oct 8 → Oct 19 · 1 models

Leaderboard

Tracked models ranked by % Score (higher is better).

Compare candidates
#Model variant and provenanceScore
1
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
71.4
2
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
69.2
3
Version: Multi-Challenge leaderboard rank 2 of 28 (accuracy%)Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Jun 7, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
67.6
4
Version: From official NVIDIA HuggingFace model cardHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Oct 7, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
63.8
5
Version: Multi-Challenge leaderboard rank 7 of 28 (accuracy%)Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Jun 7, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
61.5
6
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
61.4
7
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
60.6
8

Configuration: Mercury 3 (medium)

Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: InceptionObserved: Oct 19, 2026Confidence: self-reportedSource

Notes: Row 'MultiChallenge': Mercury 3 (MEDIUM) 60.35. Inception launch blog 'Mercury 3 — Benchmark results vs. models in its class' table image (https://framerusercontent.com/images/YO5OXn25zt3KJBJkUxO2kAwmS6o.png, evidence/blog-img-YO5OXn25.png; values transcribed by eye from printed table). Vendor-reported. Retrieved 2026-10-19.

60.4
9
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
58.6
10
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
57.1
11
Version: Multi-Challenge leaderboard rank 15 of 28 (accuracy%)Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Jun 7, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
53.0
12
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
50.5
13
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
44.9
14
Version: MultiChallenge (accuracy)Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Oct 8, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
44.7
15
Version: MultiChallenge (accuracy)Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Oct 9, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
44.7
16
Version: MultiChallengeHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 26, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
41.2

How to read this benchmark

This benchmark scores models where higher is better. Use scores for directional filtering and shortlisting, not universal quality ranking; then validate pricing, context window, provider availability, and fit for your workload.

Trust this score when

  • There is a fresh timestamped snapshot (or multiple snapshots) for this benchmark.
  • The model list covers the same version family you can actually deploy today.
  • Top candidates overlap with your required routing and feature requirements.

Be cautious when

  • There is only one benchmark snapshot or the dataset appears stale.
  • The benchmark metric direction is opposite of your decision objective.
  • The score difference between options is narrow and likely within implementation variance.

Related benchmarks

Last reviewed: Apr 26, 2026

Resources