MapSatisfyBench - Explicit Completion: leaderboard

MapSatisfyBench (2026) gives map-service agents informal, underspecified requests rebuilt from real user behavior and checks whether they recover the unstated needs through 22 replayed map tools and a simulated user, with GPT-5.3 as judge. This board is the percentage of the stated requirements that the final response satisfies; higher is better.

Metric: Explicit-factor completion rate (%): share of the query's stated requirements the final response satisfies; underspecified map-service requests rebuilt from real anonymized user behavior chains, answered by a ReAct agent with 22 deterministic replayed map tools and a simulated user; GPT-5.3 simulates the user and judges (majority of three judgments), temperature 1; higher is better. Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Estimated already saturated. 15 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1Gemini 3.1 Pro (Preview) (Thinking)91.75#94 (Gemini 3.1 Pro (Preview))
2Claude Opus 4.691.48#102
3DeepSeek V4 Pro (Non-reasoning)90.88#188 (DeepSeek V4 Pro)
4Qwen 3.6 Plus (Thinking)90.68#222 (Qwen 3.6 Plus)
5DeepSeek V3.2 (Non-reasoning)90.19#406 (DeepSeek V3.2)
6GPT-4.189.97#495
7Claude Sonnet 4.689.83#161
8Qwen 3.6 Plus (Non-reasoning)89.59#222 (Qwen 3.6 Plus)
9Qwen 3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)88.35#623 (Qwen 3 235B A22B)
10Qwen 3 8B (Non-reasoning)69.97#1830 (Qwen 3 8B)
11Qwen 3 30B A3B (Non-reasoning)60.83#1122 (Qwen 3 30B A3B)

No result here: #1 Claude Fable 5.2, #2 Gemini 4 Carbon, #5 Claude Opus 5.5.

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=mapsatisfybench-explicit-completion · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-13.