PRIME: Evaluating Prompt Resolution Under Incompatible Instructions in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22470v1
• Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 12:30:23 GMT
• Title: PRIME: Evaluating Prompt Resolution Under Incompatible Instructions in LLMs
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts.<n>Current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation.<n>We introduce a framework textitPRIME to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions.
• Score: 1.7243216387069673
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework \textit{PRIME}(\textit{Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation}) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. \textit{PRIME} purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.

Related papers

• A Mechanistic Lens on Semantic Conflicts: Using Activation Patching to Understand LLM Behavior [7.506391522879222]
  We present the first controlled, mechanistic study of large language models (LLMs) behavior under semantic conflicts.<n>We evaluate four open-weight LLMs on two tasks (output prediction and unit-test generation) using behavioral performance measures.<n>Our results show that semantic conflicts significantly reduce execution-grounded correctness in both tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T19:35:04Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Diagnosing Knowledge Conflict in Multimodal Long-Chain Reasoning [78.86309644343295]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in long chain-of-thought reasoning often fail when different knowledge sources provide conflicting signals.<n>We formalize these failures under a unified notion of knowledge conflict, distinguishing input-level objective conflict from process-level effective conflict.<n>Our findings provide a mechanism-level view of multimodal reasoning under knowledge conflict and enable principled diagnosis and control of long-CoT failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T07:10:44Z)
• On the Paradoxical Interference between Instruction-Following and Task Solving [50.75960598434753]
  Instruction following aims to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent by specifying explicit constraints on how tasks should be performed.<n>We reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: instruction following can paradoxically interfere with LLMs' task-solving capability.<n>We propose a metric, SUSTAINSCORE, to quantify the interference of instruction following with task solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T17:48:56Z)
• Deconstructing Instruction-Following: A New Benchmark for Granular Evaluation of Large Language Model Instruction Compliance Abilities [2.9203730377983654]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T15:02:15Z)
• ConInstruct: Evaluating Large Language Models on Conflict Detection and Resolution in Instructions [26.40258251641021]
  This dataset is a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models' ability to detect and resolve conflicts within user instructions.<n>Most proprietary LLMs exhibit strong conflict detection capabilities, whereas among open-source models, only DeepSeek-R1 demonstrates similarly strong performance.<n>Despite their strong conflict detection abilities, LLMs rarely explicitly notify users about the conflicts or request clarification when faced with conflicting constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T10:49:37Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• ECon: On the Detection and Resolution of Evidence Conflicts [56.89209046429291]
  The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems. This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T07:41:17Z)
• AdaCAD: Adaptively Decoding to Balance Conflicts between Contextual and Parametric Knowledge [57.66282463340297]
  Knowledge conflict arises from discrepancies between information in the context of a large language model and the knowledge stored in its parameters.<n>We propose a fine-grained, instance-level approach called AdaCAD, which dynamically infers the weight of adjustment based on the degree of conflict.<n>We show that ADACAD consistently outperforms other decoding baselines with average QA accuracy gains of 14.21% (absolute) over a static contrastive baseline, and improves the factuality of summaries by 6.19 (AlignScore)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T16:35:18Z)
• Intuitive or Dependent? Investigating LLMs' Behavior Style to Conflicting Prompts [9.399159332152013]
  This study investigates the behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs) when faced with conflicting prompts versus their internal memory. This will help to understand LLMs' decision mechanism and also benefit real-world applications, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:26:03Z)
• 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.