LLMs can be easily Confused by Instructional Distractions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04362v1
• Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 04:52:57 GMT
• Title: LLMs can be easily Confused by Instructional Distractions
• Authors: Yerin Hwang, Yongil Kim, Jahyun Koo, Taegwan Kang, Hyunkyung Bae, Kyomin Jung,
• Abstract summary: Large language models show exceptional skill in instruction following tasks. This strength can turn into a vulnerability when the models are required to disregard certain instructions. We introduce a novel benchmark, named DIM-Bench, specifically designed to assess LLMs' performance under instructional distraction.
• Score: 16.060402139507644
• License:
• 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.

Related papers

• Find the Intention of Instruction: Comprehensive Evaluation of Instruction Understanding for Large Language Models [8.020688053947547]
  One of the key strengths of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their ability to interact with humans by generating appropriate responses to given instructions. This ability, known as instruction-following capability, has established a foundation for the use of LLMs across various fields. We have noted that LLMs can become easily distracted by instruction-formatted statements, which may lead to an oversight of their instruction comprehension skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T04:37:39Z)
• Evaluating the Instruction-following Abilities of Language Models using Knowledge Tasks [4.945902994386117]
  We focus on developing a benchmark for instruction-following where it is easy to verify both task performance as well as instruction-following capabilities. We adapt existing knowledge benchmarks and augment them with instructions that are a) conditional on correctly answering the knowledge task or b) use the space of candidate options in multiple-choice knowledge-answering tasks. We find that even large-scale instruction-tuned LLMs fail to follow simple instructions in zero-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T19:07:37Z)
• Are you still on track!? Catching LLM Task Drift with Activations [55.75645403965326]
  Task drift allows attackers to exfiltrate data or influence the LLM's output for other users. We show that a simple linear classifier can detect drift with near-perfect ROC AUC on an out-of-distribution test set. We observe that this approach generalizes surprisingly well to unseen task domains, such as prompt injections, jailbreaks, and malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T16:53:21Z)
• An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Learning in Large Language Models [99.31449616860291]
  Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways. In instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly. In instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T19:31:56Z)
• INTERS: Unlocking the Power of Large Language Models in Search with Instruction Tuning [59.07490387145391]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various natural language processing tasks. Their application to information retrieval (IR) tasks is still challenging due to the infrequent occurrence of many IR-specific concepts in natural language. We introduce a novel instruction tuning dataset, INTERS, encompassing 20 tasks across three fundamental IR categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T12:10:28Z)
• How You Prompt Matters! Even Task-Oriented Constraints in Instructions Affect LLM-Generated Text Detection [39.254432080406346]
  Even task-oriented constraints -- constraints that would naturally be included in an instruction and are not related to detection-evasion -- cause existing powerful detectors to have a large variance in detection performance. Our experiments show that the standard deviation (SD) of current detector performance on texts generated by an instruction with such a constraint is significantly larger (up to an SD of 14.4 F1-score) than that by generating texts multiple times or paraphrasing the instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:32:52Z)
• From Language Modeling to Instruction Following: Understanding the Behavior Shift in LLMs after Instruction Tuning [63.63840740526497]
  We investigate how instruction tuning adjusts pre-trained models with a focus on intrinsic changes. The impact of instruction tuning is then studied by comparing the explanations derived from the pre-trained and instruction-tuned models. Our findings reveal three significant impacts of instruction tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T21:16:05Z)
• Evaluating the Instruction-Following Robustness of Large Language Models to Prompt Injection [70.28425745910711]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional proficiency in instruction-following. This capability brings with it the risk of prompt injection attacks. We evaluate the robustness of instruction-following LLMs against such attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T06:21:50Z)
• Enhancing Large Language Models Against Inductive Instructions with Dual-critique Prompting [55.15697111170836]
  This paper reveals the behaviors of large language models (LLMs) towards textitinductive instructions and enhance their truthfulness and helpfulness accordingly. After extensive human and automatic evaluations, we uncovered a universal vulnerability among LLMs in processing inductive instructions. We identify that different inductive styles affect the models' ability to identify the same underlying errors, and the complexity of the underlying assumptions also influences the model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:38:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.