The DOI matches its DataCite record.
IHEval: Evaluating Language Models on Following the Instruction Hierarchy
Open accessAbstract
The instruction hierarchy, which establishes a priority order from system messages to user messages, conversation history, and tool outputs, is essential for ensuring consistent and safe behavior in language models (LMs). Despite its importance, this topic receives limited attention, and there is a lack of comprehensive benchmarks for evaluating models' ability to follow the instruction hierarchy. We bridge this gap by introducing IHEval, a novel benchmark comprising 3,538 examples across nine tasks, covering cases where instructions in different priorities either align or conflict. Our evaluation of popular LMs highlights their struggle to recognize instruction priorities. All evaluated models experience a sharp performance decline when facing conflicting instructions, compared to their original instruction-following performance. Moreover, the most competitive open-source model only achieves 48% accuracy in resolving such conflicts. Our results underscore the need for targeted optimization in the future development of LMs.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
OctoBench: Benchmarking Scaffold-Aware Instruction Following in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding
Ding, D., Liu, S., Yang, E., Lin, J., Chen, Z., Dou, S., Guo, H., Cheng, W., Zhao, P., Xiao, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10343
“Importantly, IHEval (Zhang et al., 2025) evaluates whether models follow an instruction hierarchy by prioritizing higher-level directives under conflicts.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Z., Li, S., Zhang, Z., Liu, X., Jiang, H., Tang, X., Gao, Y., Li, Z., Wang, H., Tan, Z., Li, Y., Yin, Q., Yin, B., & Jiang, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Notre Dame (US)
- Amazon (United States) (US)
- Worcester Polytechnic Institute (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.08745
- OpenAlex
- W4407570989
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2137396)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- instruction following, language model evaluation, benchmark, system messages, tool use, chatbots, safety
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
