CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions?

Open access
Heo, Juyeon, Heinze-Deml, Christina, Elachqar, Oussama, Chan, Kwan Ho Ryan, Ren, Shirley, Nallasamy, Udhay, Miller, Andy, Narain, Jaya·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.14516arXiv 2410.14516
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Instruction-following is crucial for building AI agents with large language models (LLMs), as these models must adhere strictly to user-provided constraints and guidelines. However, LLMs often fail to follow even simple and clear instructions. To improve instruction-following behavior and prevent undesirable outputs, a deeper understanding of how LLMs' internal states relate to these outcomes is required. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs encode information in their representations that correlate with instruction-following success - a property we term knowing internally. Our analysis identifies a direction in the input embedding space, termed the instruction-following dimension, that predicts whether a response will comply with a given instruction. We find that this dimension generalizes well across unseen tasks but not across unseen instruction types. We demonstrate that modifying representations along this dimension improves instruction-following success rates compared to random changes, without compromising response quality. Further investigation reveals that this dimension is more closely related to the phrasing of prompts rather than the inherent difficulty of the task or instructions. This work provides insight into the internal workings of LLMs' instruction-following, paving the way for reliable LLM agents.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.14516

Cites

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?

  • Performance can degrade under superficial changes that leave underlying logic intact, such as swapping surface values in GSM-style maths questions or reframing otherwise identical problems.

    “Performance can degrade under superficial changes that leave underlying logic intact-for example, swapping surface values in GSM-style maths questions[15] or reframing otherwise identical problems[16, 17].”

    From Illusions of reflection: open-ended task reveals systematic failures in Large Language Models' reflective reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    Section 4 reports rephrasing prompts while keeping the task and instruction meanings unchanged, and finds that phrasing changes align strongly with an instruction-following dimension. It suggests phrasing affects whether a model follows instructions, but does not report a measured performance decline from those rephrasings. The GSM-style maths example is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat Behl, et al. Phi-3 technical re- port: A highly capable language model locally on your phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219, 2024. · arXiv
  2. Gustaf Ahdritz, Tian Qin, Nikhil Vyas, Boaz Barak, and Benjamin L Edelman. Distinguishing the knowable from the unknowable with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03563, 2024. · arXiv
  3. Guillaume Alain and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644, 2016. · arXiv
  4. Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. The internal state of an llm knows when it's lying. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734, 2023. · arXiv
  5. Yonatan Belinkov. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219, 2022.
  6. Collin Burns, Haotian Ye, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Discovering latent knowledge in lan- guage models without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03827, 2022. · arXiv
  7. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. Unlearn what you want to forget: Efficient unlearning for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20150, 2023. · arXiv
  8. Hanyu Duan, Yi Yang, and Kar Yan Tam. Do llms know about hallucination? an empirical investi- gation of llm's hidden states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09733, 2024. · arXiv
  9. Yanai Elazar, Shauli Ravfogel, Alon Jacovi, and Yoav Goldberg. Amnesic probing: Behavioral explanation with amnesic counterfactuals. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:160-175, 2021.
  10. Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature, 630(8017):625-630, 2024.
  11. Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04037, 2022. · arXiv
  12. Qianyu He, Jie Zeng, Qianxi He, Jiaqing Liang, and Yanghua Xiao. From complex to simple: Enhancing multi-constraint complex instruction following ability of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15846, 2024. · arXiv
  13. Fred Jelinek, Robert L Mercer, Lalit R Bahl, and James K Baker. Perplexity-a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(S1): S63-S63, 1977.
  14. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. · arXiv
  15. Jihoo Kim, Wonho Song, Dahyun Kim, Yunsu Kim, Yungi Kim, and Chanjun Park. Evalverse: Uni- fied and accessible library for large language model evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00943, 2024. · arXiv
  16. Kenneth Li, Aspen K Hopkins, David Bau, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Watten- berg. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13382, 2022. · arXiv
  17. Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024a.
  18. Yuanchun Li, Hao Wen, Weijun Wang, Xiangyu Li, Yizhen Yuan, Guohong Liu, Jiacheng Liu, Wenxing Xu, Xiang Wang, Yi Sun, et al. Personal llm agents: Insights and survey about the capability, efficiency and security. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05459, 2024b. · arXiv
  19. Sheng Lu, Hendrik Schuff, and Iryna Gurevych. How are prompts different in terms of sensitivity? arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07230, 2023. · arXiv
  20. Jinqi Luo, Tianjiao Ding, Kwan Ho Ryan Chan, Darshan Thaker, Aditya Chattopadhyay, Chris Callison-Burch, and René Vidal. Pace: Parsimonious concept engineering for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04331, 2024. · arXiv
  21. Samuel Marks and Max Tegmark. The geometry of truth: Emergent linear structure in large language model representations of true/false datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06824, 2023. · arXiv
  22. Neel Nanda, Andrew Lee, and Martin Wattenberg. Emergent linear representations in world models of self-supervised sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00941, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Kiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, and Victor Veitch. The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03658, 2023. · arXiv
  24. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Pretten- hofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825-2830, 2011.
  25. Yiwei Qin, Kaiqiang Song, Yebowen Hu, Wenlin Yao, Sangwoo Cho, Xiaoyang Wang, Xuansheng Wu, Fei Liu, Pengfei Liu, and Dong Yu. Infobench: Evaluating instruction following ability in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03601, 2024. · arXiv
  26. Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Matt Turner. Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06681, 2023. · arXiv
  27. Melanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Alane Suhr. Quantifying language models' sen- sitivity to spurious features in prompt design or: How i learned to start worrying about prompt formatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11324, 2023. · arXiv
  28. Nishant Subramani, Nivedita Suresh, and Matthew E Peters. Extracting latent steering vectors from pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05124, 2022. · arXiv
  29. Haoran Sun, Lixin Liu, Junjie Li, Fengyu Wang, Baohua Dong, Ran Lin, and Ruohui Huang. Conifer: Improving complex constrained instruction-following ability of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02823, 2024. · arXiv
  30. Curt Tigges, Oskar John Hollinsworth, Atticus Geiger, and Neel Nanda. Linear representations of sentiment in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15154, 2023. · arXiv
  31. Eric Todd, Millicent L Li, Arnab Sen Sharma, Aaron Mueller, Byron C Wallace, and David Bau. Function vectors in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15213, 2023. · arXiv
  32. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  33. Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Mike Schaekermann, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Nenad Tomasev, et al. Towards conversational diagnostic ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05654, 2024. · arXiv
  34. Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Juan J Vazquez, Ulisse Mini, and Monte MacDiarmid. Activation addition: Steering language models without optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10248, 2023. · arXiv
  35. Hongru Wang, Rui Wang, Fei Mi, Yang Deng, Zezhong Wang, Bin Liang, Ruifeng Xu, and Kam-Fai Wong. Cue-cot: Chain-of-thought prompting for responding to in-depth dialogue questions with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11792, 2023. · arXiv
  36. Congying Xia, Chen Xing, Jiangshu Du, Xinyi Yang, Yihao Feng, Ran Xu, Wenpeng Yin, and Caiming Xiong. Fofo: A benchmark to evaluate llms' format-following capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18667, 2024. · arXiv
  37. Jianhao Yan, Yun Luo, and Yue Zhang. Refutebench: Evaluating refuting instruction-following for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13463, 2024. · arXiv
  38. Qingru Zhang, Chandan Singh, Liyuan Liu, Xiaodong Liu, Bin Yu, Jianfeng Gao, and Tuo Zhao. Tell your model where to attend: Post-hoc attention steering for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02262, 2023. · arXiv
  39. Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911, 2023. · arXiv
  40. Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, et al. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heo, J., Heinze-Deml, C., Elachqar, O., Chan, K. H. R., Ren, S., Nallasamy, U., Miller, A., & Narain, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Apple (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.14516
arXiv
2410.14516
OpenAlex
W4404342049
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • 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, internal representations, embedding space analysis, LLM agents, task generalization

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