Cited by 78Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Models

Open access
Qin, Yiwei, Song, Kaiqiang, Hu, Yebowen, Yao, Wenlin, Cho, Sangwoo, Wang, Xiaoyang, Wu, Xuansheng, Liu, Fei +2 more·2024·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024

Abstract

This paper introduces the Decomposed Requirements Following Ratio (DRFR), a new metric for evaluating Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to follow instructions.Addressing a gap in current methodologies, DRFR breaks down complex instructions into simpler criteria, facilitating a detailed analysis of LLMs' compliance with various aspects of tasks.Alongside this metric, we present INFOBENCH, a benchmark comprising 500 diverse instructions and 2,250 decomposed questions across multiple constraint categories.Our experiments compare DRFR with traditional scoring methods and explore annotation sources, including human experts, crowdsourced workers, and GPT-4.The findings demonstrate DRFR's higher reliability and the effectiveness of using GPT-4 as a costefficient annotator.The evaluation of several advanced LLMs using this framework reveals their strengths and areas needing improvement, particularly in complex instructionfollowing.This study contributes a novel metric and benchmark, offering insights for future LLM development and evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.772

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • InFoBench evaluates models by decomposing the instruction into atomic constraints and rating each constraint individually with an LLM-as-a-judge.

    “InFoBench [19] evaluates models by decomposing the instruction into atomic constraints and rating each constraint individually with an LLM-as-a-judge.”

    From Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Following (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  2. Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Mar- tic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 30.
  3. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agree- ment among many raters. Psychological bulletin, 76(5):378.
  4. Renze Lou, Kai Zhang, and Wenpeng Yin. 2023. Is prompt all you need? no. a comprehensive and broader view of instruction learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10475. · arXiv
  5. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Aman- preet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stick- ier benchmark for general-purpose language under- standing systems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qin, Y., Song, K., Hu, Y., Yao, W., Cho, S., Wang, X., Wu, X., Liu, F., Liu, P., & Yu, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024
Published
2024
Pages
13025-13048
OpenAlex
W4402684226
Cited by
77
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 6
FWCI
18.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
instruction following, large language models, evaluation metrics, benchmark, annotation reliability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review