IFHierBench is introduced, a hierarchical instruction-following benchmark of 600 prompts stratified across four constraint-tree depths and 35 distinct constraints, each prompt paired with a deterministic checker that verifies satisfaction at every scope.
Abstract
Instruction-following ability is critical for deploying large language models in real-world applications, where downstream components depend on the output satisfying specific constraints. Modern deployments increasingly handle the full task in a single LLM call, with one prompt specifying a layered output whose overall artifact, structural sections, and nested fields must each satisfy concrete constraints. Existing instruction-following benchmarks treat the constraint set as a flat list applied uniformly to the response, so they cannot scope a check to a particular section of the output. We introduce IFHierBench, a hierarchical instruction-following benchmark of 600 prompts stratified across four constraint-tree depths and 35 distinct constraints, each prompt paired with a deterministic checker that verifies satisfaction at every scope. Evaluating seven leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that even the strongest model only marginally exceeds 50% prompt-level accuracy and that accuracy degrades sharply as constraint depth grows. Reliably following nested constraints remains a substantial gap for current LLMs, motivating future training methods that consider constraint adherence at finer granularity to achieve better instruction-following ability.
Production prompts rarely carry a single instruction. One system message may require valid JSON, a word limit, three citations, and a fixed tone at the same time. We study how instruction-following degrades as such constraints accumulate. We introduce a benchmark that stacks 24 verifier-checked instructions, one to twenty at a time, and evaluate three production-tier LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash). Instruction-following degrades non-linearly: the follow rate falls from ~96% to as low as 20%, driven by a structured and reproducible set of pairwise conflicts. A single"output JSON"constraint, for example, is jointly unsatisfiable with nine others. We then evaluate a training-free remedy: an instruction compiler that rewrites the stacked prompt in a single LLM call and is reused across queries. Its benefit is capability-graded. It recovers up to +11 points of follow rate for weaker models, which are also the models most often deployed at scale, while leaving stronger models, which already internalise the same structure, essentially unchanged. Cluster-robust tests, same-baseline controls, and a within-family scaling ladder attribute the gain to the rewrite itself rather than to additional tokens, reordering, or measurement headroom. We release the benchmark, verifiers, and cached runs for full reproduction.
Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved code generation, yet achieving strong functional correctness remains difficult, especially for heterogeneous programming tasks where a single prompting strategy and a single directly generated output are often insufficient. In this paper, we present RAV, a lightweight and modular framework that improves code generation with a fixed backbone model through three coordinated stages: Route, which applies task-aware prompt routing before generation; Align, which reduces the mismatch between fine-tuning prompts and inference-time prompts through aligned LoRA adaptation; and Verify, which selects the final output by executing multiple candidates against visible public tests. We evaluate RAV on the MBPP benchmark under both the sanitized and full settings. The complete RAV pipeline achieves the best performance among all evaluated configurations, reaching 0.8911 on MBPP Sanitized and 0.8520 on MBPP Full. Compared with the base model, these results represent improvements of 6.35 and 9.92 percentage points, respectively. Component-wise ablation experiments further show that task-aware routing and aligned adaptation become substantially more effective when combined with execution-based verification. Additional robustness and contamination analyses support the reliability of the observed improvements. Overall, the results indicate that functional correctness in code generation can be meaningfully improved without modifying the backbone architecture, by jointly optimizing how tasks are prompted, how the model is adapted, and how final outputs are selected.
Large language models are increasingly deployed in settings that require simultaneous adherence to multiple explicit constraints - reasoning structure, safety boundaries, output schemas. Individual constraints are handled proficiently, but the compositional regime, where many must hold jointly, remains poorly characterized: how rapidly does performance degrade, what governs the degradation, and can the collapse be mitigated? We introduce Constraint Saturation Evaluation (CSE), a procedurally generated benchmark that systematically varies the number of simultaneous constraints (k), with every constraint scored by a deterministic, rule-based verifier and zero LLM-judge involvement: 15 models, 36 constraint types, 369,753 checks at k=1-12. Three findings emerge. First, per-constraint pass rate decays gradually and predictably, while the chance of satisfying all k constraints collapses - a model passing individual constraints at ~41% at k=8 succeeds on all eight just 5.7% of the time. Second, constraints do not degrade equally: structural constraints lose 2x more baseline capability per added constraint than lexical ones, ordered by a comprehension-maintenance gap that separates constraints requiring sustained tracking from binary decisions immune to composition. Third, failures are nearly independent, which is what makes the accumulation multiplicative; the residual coupling that does exist tracks shared output features rather than pairwise interference - a wrong sentence count fails every constraint that reads it. Reliable instruction following breaks down beyond 5-6 simultaneous constraints: probe-level success falls below 50% at 7 constraints for the strongest model, and at 3 or fewer for 12 of 15.
Enterprise agents must follow long-horizon, conditional, safety-critical standard operating procedures (SOPs). We compile machine-readable SOP constraints into executable pseudo-code and run them with a program-guided (PG) stack machine that pages the active frame while an LLM performs semantic execution. A three-arm SOPBench study across six models separates representation from runtime: compiled text never significantly hurts and gains up to 16.0 points where official prose underperforms. Runtime guidance is capability-gated. Two strong models independently show positive seven-domain PG contrasts (58:19 and 75:31 discordant pairs), whereas weak models are harmed. A full-program cursor ablation (active frame first, complete program retained) recovers much of the strong-model refusal gain; selective visibility adds a smaller improvement. Paired probe and audit measurements track this divide to spontaneous state discipline rather than reconstruction ability. On Bank the three primary arms rise from 70.4 to 86.4 to 92.8, with 100% refusal correctness. Practical guidance: compile first; enable active-frame paging only after a model-level discipline check.
Chenglin Yu, Lichao Yin, Qingxin Fan et al.· 1 citation
Natural-language requirements for program synthesis are often incomplete or ambiguous, yet large language models are commonly expected to generate code in a single pass. Prior clarification-based methods address this issue by asking follow-up questions when sampled candidate programs disagree, but fixed clarify-on-disagreement policies can overuse clarification and can also overtrust weak behavioral agreement. We present an adaptive routing framework for LLM-based program synthesis that treats clarification as an inference-time control decision. The framework augments a ClarifyGPT-style pipeline with execution-driven confidence estimation, semanticdifference analysis, and bounded candidate expansion, allowing the system to choose among direct generation, additional evidence gathering, and clarification. We evaluate the framework on MBPP, HumanEval, and extended-test variants using GPT-4.1 mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and GPT-5.4 mini. Adaptive routing improves pass@1 accuracy by up to 7.60 percentage points over single-pass baselines. Compared with fixed-policy clarification, it preserves accuracy while reducing token usage by up to 57.2% for GPT-4.1 mini, and reallocates computation toward harder cases for Claude Haiku 4.5. These results suggest that clarification is most useful when triggered selectively based on execution evidence and semantic disagreement, even when ambiguity is observed indirectly through candidate behavior rather than through explicitly annotated ambiguous requirements.
Muhammad Ahmed, Edwar Tiu, Niyati Nikunj Kapadia et al.· Annual International Compute...· 0 citations