reasoning benchmark
ZebraLogic is an evaluation framework for assessing large language models' logical reasoning capabilities through logic grid puzzles derived from constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). The benchmark consists of 1,000 programmatically generated puzzles with controllable and quantifiable complexity, revealing a 'curse of complexity' where model accuracy declines significantly as problem complexity grows.
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 1 | AC | 97.3% | 100.0% | 8 | C | |
| 2 | ME | 95.5% | 85.7% | 8 | C | |
| 3 | AC | 95.0% | 71.4% | 8 | C | |
| 4 | ME | 89.3% | 57.1% | 8 | C | |
| 5 | MA | 89.0% | 42.9% | 8 | C | |
| 6 | MA | 89.0% | 28.6% | 8 | C | |
| 7 | MI | 86.8% | 14.3% | 8 | C | |
| 8 | MI | 80.1% | 0.0% | 8 | C |
Top published rows on the benchmark's original scale.
The top published results on this benchmark's own scale.
Definition and scoring fields from the benchmark registry.
ZebraLogic is an evaluation framework for assessing large language models' logical reasoning capabilities through logic grid puzzles derived from constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). The benchmark consists of 1,000 programmatically generated puzzles with controllable and quantifiable complexity, revealing a 'curse of complexity' where model accuracy declines significantly as problem complexity grows.
Scores are shown in ratio. The current registry marks this benchmark as not independently verified with evidence level B.
Source-native results are preserved. Eligibility for the overall LLMBoard score is a separate policy decision.
Common questions about ZebraLogic.
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is currently ranked first with 97.3%.
ZebraLogic is an evaluation framework for assessing large language models' logical reasoning capabilities through logic grid puzzles derived from constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). The benchmark consists of 1,000 programmatically generated puzzles with controllable and quantifiable complexity, revealing a 'curse of complexity' where model accuracy declines significantly as problem complexity grows.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
8 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is preserved as source-native evidence but is not eligible for the current overall score.