PreprintCited by 8Topic ModelingSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Instruction-following Evaluation through Verbalizer Manipulation

Open access

Abstract

While instruction-tuned models have shown remarkable success in various natural language processing tasks, accurately evaluating their ability to follow instructions remains challenging. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on common instructions that align well with what the model learned during training. However, proficiency in responding to these instructions does not necessarily imply strong ability in instruction following. In this paper, we propose a novel instruction-following evaluation protocol called verbalizer manipulation. It instructs the model to verbalize the task label with words aligning with model priors to different extents, adopting verbalizers from highly aligned (e.g., outputting ``postive'' for positive sentiment), to minimally aligned (e.g., outputting ``negative'' for positive sentiment). Verbalizer manipulation can be seamlessly integrated with any classification benchmark to examine the model's reliance on priors and its ability to override them to accurately follow the instructions. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of four major model families across nine datasets, employing twelve sets of verbalizers for each of them. We observe that the instruction-following abilities of models, across different families and scales, are significantly distinguished by their performance on less natural verbalizers. Even the strongest GPT-4 model struggles to perform better than random guessing on the most challenging verbalizer, emphasizing the need for continued advancements to improve their instruction-following abilities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2307.10558

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Better models require less prompt engineering, as they are more robust to minor variations in inputs and outputs.

    “This fact is known in the community, with arguments made that better models require less prompt engineering, as they are more robust to minor variations in inputs and outputs [47].”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

Citations

Cites

  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

    Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 2×

    “However, in unnatural instructions, performance of the same model diverges significantly and when model further scales, they exhibit scaling-shape [22] or U-shape [23] or inverse scaling-shape [24] depending on model family and verbalizers.”
    BackgroundResult

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation

    Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 419

    “This fact is known in the community, with arguments made P REPRINT that better models require less prompt engineering, as they are more robust to minor variations in inputs and outputs [47].”

Metadata

Authors
Li, S., Yan, J., Wang, H., Tang, Z., Ren, X., Srinivasan, V., & Jin, H.
Affiliations
  • Samsung (United States) (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
3678-3692
OpenAlex
W4401043061
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2
FWCI
2.31
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Samsung
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
instruction following, verbalizers, model priors, GPT-4, instruction-tuned models, sentiment classification

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