FireBench: Evaluating Instruction Following in Enterprise and API-Driven LLM Applications
Organizations: Columbia University · Fireworks AI
Abstract
Instruction following is critical for LLMs deployed in enterprise and API-driven settings, where strict adherence to output formats, content constraints, and procedural requirements is essential for enabling reliable LLM-assisted workflows. However, existing instruction following benchmarks predominantly evaluate natural language generation constraints that reflect the needs of chat assistants rather than enterprise users. To bridge this gap, we introduce FireBench, an LLM instruction following benchmark grounded in real-world enterprise and API usage patterns. FireBench evaluates six core capability dimensions across diverse applications including information extraction, customer support, and coding agents, comprising over 2,400 samples. We evaluate 11 LLMs and present key findings on their instruction following behavior in enterprise scenarios. We open-source FireBench at fire-bench.com to help users assess model suitability, support model developers in diagnosing performance, and invite community contributions.
Figures & tables
| Category | Task Design | # |
|---|---|---|
| Output Format (§ 3.1 ) | Reasoning and long-document QA under 21 format constraints; coding problems under 3 structured formats. Verified programmatically. | 1,300 |
| Ordered Responses (§ 3.2 ) | Simulated multi-turn customer support sessions in which the agent must collect 10–15 information fields in strict sequential order. Results are verified programmatically. | 200 |
| Item Ranking (§ 3.3 ) | Table sorting operations over realistic records; models must return top- rows verbatim according to specified sorting criteria. Results are verified programmatically. | 200 |
| Overconfidence (§ 3.4 ) | Challenging tasks : paired normal and uncertainty-aware prompts from challenging reasoning benchmarks. Insufficient information : unanswerable questions over long-form documents requiring explicit refusal. Models are evaluated on whether they appropriately decline questions they cannot solve or for which sufficient information is unavailable. | 370 |
| Positive Content (§ 3.5 ) | Selected Arena Hard 2.0 prompts augmented with mandatory content requirements. Evaluated via LLM judge. | 200 |
| Negative Content (§ 3.6 ) | Same prompts augmented with prohibitive constraints; models must avoid forbidden elements. Evaluated via LLM judge. | 200 |
| Model | Format | Ordered Responses | Ranking | Overconfidence | Positive Content Requirements | Negative Content Requirements | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus | 54.3 | 65.5 | 92.5 | 86.0 | 84.0 | 81.4 | 74.0 |
| GPT-5.1 Medium Thinking | 62.2 | 53.5 | 93.0 | 67.7 | 86.5 | 84.0 | 72.7 |
| GPT-4.1 | 86.9 | 76.3 | 32.5 | 38.6 | 94.5 | 94.5 | 70.5 |
| Qwen3 235B Thinking 2507 | 39.9 | 72.0 | 76.0 | 42.0 | 85.5 | 84.2 | 66.6 |
| Qwen3 235B Instruct 2507 | 65.6 | 69.8 | 38.0 | 44.2 | 87.0 | 93.5 | 66.3 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 64.0 | 59.5 | 63.0 | 53.4 | 79.0 | 74.5 | 65.3 |
LLM Evaluation
Large language model evaluation measures what models can do, how reliably they do it, and whether benchmark scores predict real-world performance.
See all 2,408 papers