Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Composition

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.03978 v3 pith:PMUMIZNT submitted 2024-07-04 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords complexcompositioninstructionsconstraintsllmstypesabilityconstraint
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Instruction following is one of the fundamental capabilities of large language models (LLMs). As the ability of LLMs is constantly improving, they have been increasingly applied to deal with complex human instructions in real-world scenarios. Therefore, how to evaluate the ability of complex instruction-following of LLMs has become a critical research problem. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on modeling different types of constraints in human instructions while neglecting the composition of different constraints, which is an indispensable constituent in complex instructions. To this end, we propose ComplexBench, a benchmark for comprehensively evaluating the ability of LLMs to follow complex instructions composed of multiple constraints. We propose a hierarchical taxonomy for complex instructions, including 4 constraint types, 19 constraint dimensions, and 4 composition types, and manually collect a high-quality dataset accordingly. To make the evaluation reliable, we augment LLM-based evaluators with rules to effectively verify whether generated texts can satisfy each constraint and composition. Furthermore, we obtain the final evaluation score based on the dependency structure determined by different composition types. ComplexBench identifies significant deficiencies in existing LLMs when dealing with complex instructions with multiple constraints composition.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IFScale measures instruction-following at densities from 10 to 500 constraints and finds that even top frontier models satisfy only about two-thirds of 500 simultaneous keyword instructions.

  2. A Hierarchical and Evolvable Benchmark for Fine-Grained Code Instruction Following with Multi-Turn Feedback

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MultiCodeIF introduces a 2,021-task, 14-language benchmark with 27 constraint types to evaluate code instruction following, finding that multi-level constraints sharply reduce model success and iterative feedback subs...

  3. NavBench: Probing Multimodal Large Language Models for Embodied Navigation

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NavBench introduces a two-part benchmark for zero-shot embodied navigation evaluation, showing that MLLMs' navigation comprehension correlates with execution and that temporal progress tracking is a major bottleneck.

  4. Fine-tuning on simulated data outperforms prompting for agent tone of voice

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning a 1B-parameter LLM on as few as 100 synthetically generated, readability-filtered samples achieved conversational tone more reliably than a verbose system prompt.

Pith tools