REVIEW 3 cited by
LLMs can be easily Confused by Instructional Distractions
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
read the original abstract
Despite the fact that large language models (LLMs) show exceptional skill in instruction following tasks, this strength can turn into a vulnerability when the models are required to disregard certain instructions. Instruction-following tasks typically involve a clear task description and input text containing the target data to be processed. However, when the input itself resembles an instruction, confusion may arise, even if there is explicit prompting to distinguish between the task instruction and the input. We refer to this phenomenon as instructional distraction. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark, named DIM-Bench, specifically designed to assess LLMs' performance under instructional distraction. The benchmark categorizes real-world instances of instructional distraction and evaluates LLMs across four instruction tasks: rewriting, proofreading, translation, and style transfer -- alongside five input tasks: reasoning, code generation, mathematical reasoning, bias detection, and question answering. Our experimental results reveal that even the most advanced LLMs are susceptible to instructional distraction, often failing to accurately follow user intent in such cases.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Addressing Benchmarking Gaps in Large Language Models for Health and Medicine with Dynamic Red-Teaming
A dynamic red-teaming audit reports that 94% of MedQA-correct answers fail under adversarial mutation, with 86% privacy leak rates, 81% bias shift rates, and 66-74% hallucination rates across 15 medical LLMs.
-
How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?
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.
-
Can You Trick the Grader? Adversarial Persuasion of LLM Judges
Strategically inserted persuasive sentences inflate LLM judges' scores for incorrect math solutions across six benchmarks and fourteen models, but the study lacks length-matched controls separating rhetoric from lengt...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.