Deconstructing Instruction-Following: A New Benchmark for Granular Evaluation of Large Language Model Instruction Compliance Abilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18554v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:02:15 GMT
• Title: Deconstructing Instruction-Following: A New Benchmark for Granular Evaluation of Large Language Model Instruction Compliance Abilities
• Authors: Alberto Purpura, Li Wang, Sahil Badyal, Eugenio Beaufrand, Adam Faulkner,
• Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks fail to reflect real-world use or isolate compliance from task success.<n>We introduce MOSAIC, a modular framework that uses a dynamically generated dataset with up to 20 application-oriented generation constraints.<n>We show that compliance is not a monolithic capability but varies significantly with constraint type, quantity, and position.
• Score: 2.9203730377983654
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reliably ensuring Large Language Models (LLMs) follow complex instructions is a critical challenge, as existing benchmarks often fail to reflect real-world use or isolate compliance from task success. We introduce MOSAIC (MOdular Synthetic Assessment of Instruction Compliance), a modular framework that uses a dynamically generated dataset with up to 20 application-oriented generation constraints to enable a granular and independent analysis of this capability. Our evaluation of five LLMs from different families based on this new benchmark demonstrates that compliance is not a monolithic capability but varies significantly with constraint type, quantity, and position. The analysis reveals model-specific weaknesses, uncovers synergistic and conflicting interactions between instructions, and identifies distinct positional biases such as primacy and recency effects. These granular insights are critical for diagnosing model failures and developing more reliable LLMs for systems that demand strict adherence to complex instructions.

Related papers

• [Re] Benchmarking LLM Capabilities in Negotiation through Scoreable Games [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in multi-agent negotiation tasks.<n>This study investigates the thoroughness of a negotiation benchmark based on Scoreable Games.<n>Our results highlight the importance of context in model-comparative evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T14:11:31Z)
• Linear-LLM-SCM: Benchmarking LLMs for Coefficient Elicitation in Linear-Gaussian Causal Models [28.281361951823765]
  We introduce Linear-LLM-SCM, a plug-and-play benchmarking framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>We show challenges in such benchmarking tasks, namely, strongity in the results in some of the models and susceptibility to DAG misspecification via spurious edges in the continuous domains.<n>We also open-source the benchmarking framework so that researchers can utilize their DAGs and any off-the-shelf LLMs plug-and-play for evaluation in their domains effortlessly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T20:49:01Z)
• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• On Evaluating Performance of LLM Inference Serving Systems [11.712948114304925]
  We identify recurring anti-patterns across three key dimensions: Baseline Fairness, Evaluation setup, and Metric Design.<n>These anti-patterns are uniquely problematic for Large Language Model (LLM) inference due to its dual-phase nature.<n>We provide a comprehensive checklist derived from our analysis, establishing a framework for recognizing and avoiding these anti-patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T20:58:21Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• Statistical Runtime Verification for LLMs via Robustness Estimation [0.0]
  Adversarial robustness verification is essential for ensuring the safe deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in runtime-critical applications.<n>This paper presents a case study adapting and extending the RoMA statistical verification framework to assess its feasibility as an online runtime robustness monitor for LLMs in black-box deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• FACT-AUDIT: An Adaptive Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic Fact-Checking Evaluation of Large Language Models [79.41859481668618]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies.<n>Existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics.<n>We introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T07:44:22Z)
• Bridging Interpretability and Robustness Using LIME-Guided Model Refinement [0.0]
  Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) systematically enhance model robustness.<n> Empirical evaluations on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that LIME-guided refinement not only improves interpretability but also significantly enhances resistance to adversarial perturbations and generalization to out-of-distribution data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-25T17:32:45Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)

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.