REVIEW 3 cited by
FollowEval: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Assessing the Instruction-Following Capability of Large Language Models
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
The effective assessment of the instruction-following ability of large language models (LLMs) is of paramount importance. A model that cannot adhere to human instructions might be not able to provide reliable and helpful responses. In pursuit of this goal, various benchmarks have been constructed to evaluate the instruction-following capacity of these models. However, these benchmarks are limited to a single language and are constructed using automated approaches, which restricts their applicability and the quality of the test examples they contain. To bridge this gap, we introduce the FollowEval benchmark in this paper. This benchmark is composed of instances in both English and Chinese, and all test examples are crafted by human experts. Furthermore, the FollowEval benchmark is designed to assess LLMs across five critical dimensions of instruction following: string manipulation, commonsense reasoning, logical reasoning, spatial reasoning, and response constraints. To enhance the complexity and present a sufficient challenge, each test example is designed to evaluate more than one dimension. We have evaluated various LLMs using the FollowEval benchmark and found that their performance significantly lags behind that of humans. This highlights the considerable room for improvement in the instruction-following ability of these models.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Inverse IFEval: Can LLMs Unlearn Stubborn Training Conventions to Follow Real Instructions?
A new 1,012-question benchmark shows LLMs often fail instructions that deliberately invert common training conventions, revealing a measurable gap in counterintuitive instruction following.
-
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.
-
TReB: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Table Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models
TReB evaluates 26 large language models on 26 table reasoning subtasks using textual, programmatic, and interleaved reasoning modes, finding that the best model reaches only about 70 on a 0-100 judging scale.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.