Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Following
Open accessAbstract
A crucial factor for successful human and AI interaction is the ability of language models or chatbots to follow human instructions precisely. A common feature of instructions are output constraints like ``only answer with yes or no" or ``mention the word `abrakadabra' at least 3 times" that the user adds to craft a more useful answer. Even today's strongest models struggle with fulfilling such constraints. We find that most models strongly overfit on a small set of verifiable constraints from the benchmarks that test these abilities, a skill called precise instruction following, and are not able to generalize well to unseen output constraints. We introduce a new benchmark, IFBench, to evaluate precise instruction following generalization on 58 new, diverse, and challenging verifiable out-of-domain constraints. In addition, we perform an extensive analysis of how and on what data models can be trained to improve precise instruction following generalization. Specifically, we carefully design constraint verification modules and show that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) significantly improves instruction following. In addition to IFBench, we release 29 additional new hand-annotated training constraints and verification functions, RLVR training prompts, and code.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper introduces IFBENCH, a 58-constraint benchmark for precise instruction following generalization, and IFTRAIN, 29 new training constraints, showing that most models overfit to IFEval’s small constraint set. It finds that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (IF-RLVR) substantially improves both in-domain IFEval and out-of-domain IFBENCH performance.
Key findings
- Leading models score below 50% on IFBENCH despite high IFEval scores, e.g. GPT-4.1 or Claude 3.7 Sonnet score below 50%, and Qwen3-32B or Claude 4 Sonnet also score below 50%.
- IF-RLVR improves TÜLU-3-8B from 82.4 to 92.2 on IFEval and from 28.9 to 45.9 on IFBENCH; for Qwen-2.5-7B base, the abstract reports 87.8 on IFEval and 54.7 on IFBENCH (Table 3 reports 53.7 on IFBENCH).
- Training on more constraints per prompt helps generalization: with a Qwen2.5 policy, IFBench reaches 59.5 when training on up to 3 constraints and IFEval reaches 85.8 when training on up to 6 constraints (Table 1).
- GRPO with verifiable rewards outperforms DPO on the same prompts: GRPO after DPO reaches 89.65 strict IFEval and 30.6 strict IFBENCH, versus DPO after DPO at 79.67 and 29.3 (Table 5).
Methods
- IFBENCH contains 58 new verifiable constraints across 7 categories (count, ratio, words, sentence, format, custom, copy), instantiated on 300 unseen WildChat prompts, with single-turn and multi-turn evaluation and strict/loose accuracy.
- IFTRAIN contains 29 new hand-annotated training constraints and verification functions; IF-RLVR training prompts combine TÜLU-3-SFT instructions with constraints from IFEval and IFTRAIN, using about 60k–100k prompts and GRPO with outcome supervision.
- Experiments train Llama-3.1/TÜLU-3-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, and OLMo2 base/instruct policies, compare GRPO to DPO, vary constraints per instance, variable ranges, and constraint categories, and evaluate on IFEval, IFBENCH, AlpacaEval 2, GSM8K, MMLU, and BBH.
Limitations
- The paper states it focuses exclusively on verifiable constraints, which is limiting because many real-world user constraints lack easily verifiable ground truth, and its constraints may sometimes seem unnatural or contrived.
- The text makes evident a trade-off: targeted IF-RLVR can harm other downstream evaluations, e.g. AlpacaEval 2 drops to 21.3 for IF-RLVR TÜLU-DPO 8B versus 34.5 for TÜLU, and IF-RLVR Qwen2.5 7B scores low on GSM8K (15.3), MMLU (59.4), and BBH (26.0).
- The paper also reports reward hacking/over-optimization, where IF-RLVR models prioritize constraints over the main task; base-policy completions receive an average LLM-as-judge score of 7 versus 6.4 for IF-RLVR completions, motivating a preference reward model signal.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
30 of 48 cited sources checked · 18 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10
Following instructions precisely and adhering to specific output or formatting constraints is often still a challenge for language models.
“Following instructions precisely and adhering to specific output or formatting constraints is often still a challenge for language models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [24] [24] Zhi Rui Tam, Cheng-Kuang Wu, Yi-Lin Tsai, Chieh-Yen Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Yun-Nung Chen. Let me speak freely? a study on the impact of format restrictions on performance of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02442 , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [23] [23] Jiao Sun, Yufei Tian, Wangchunshu Zhou, Nan Xu, Qian Hu, Rahul Gupta, John Frederick Wieting, Nanyun Peng, and Xuezhe Ma. Evaluating large language models on controlled generation tasks. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . - source
- Findingown data§ 4.1 Training on Multiple Constraints · p. 5
On IFBENCH, the best performance is achieved when training on more than one constraint per instance.
“Also on the out-of-domain benchmark IFBENCH, the best performance is achieved when training on more than one constraint per instance (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingreasoning§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
RLVR can lead to over-optimization.
“we find that RLVR can lead to over-optimization”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 1
Leading language models score below 50% on IFBENCH.
“leading models such as GPT-4.1 or Claude 3.7 Sonnet score below 50%.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“we find that leading LMs such as Qwen3-32B or Claude 4 Sonnet score below 50%”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
RLVR with GRPO and data augmentation leads to significant performance increases on old IF benchmarks and IFBENCH.
“Our results indicate that RLVR with Group Region Policy Optimization (GRPO) [21] and data augmentation leads to significant performance increases on old IF benchmarks and IFBENCH.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [21] [21] Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.5 Teaching the basic units of precise IF · p. 7
GRPO training on the new constraints shows targeted improvements in copying from input, counting, and formatting.
“We find that GRPO training on our new constraints shows targeted improvements in all these areas.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1
IFTRAIN consists of 29 new, unseen, verifiable constraints with corresponding verification functions.
“we release 29 additional new hand-annotated training constraints and verification functions”
- Also stated in: § 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 4 · plain
“IFTRAIN consists of 29 new, unseen, verifiable constraints, with their corresponding verification functions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 4 · plain
- Findingown data§ 4.2 Seen vs. Unseen Constraints · p. 5
Training on the 25 constraint templates from IFEval directly translates to good performance on IFEval.
“Training on the 25 constraint templates from IFEval directly translates to good performance on IFEval.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 3.1 IF-RLVR Results · p. 4
IF-RLVR is very well suited for teaching a model to follow instructions precisely.
“In Figure 1 we show that IF-RLVR is very well suited to for teaching a model to follow instructions precisely.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.2 Seen vs. Unseen Constraints · p. 5
On IFBENCH, performance is less affected by the number of IFEval constraints the model is trained on.
“On the out-of-domain benchmark IFBENCH, on the other hand, performance is less affected by the number of IFEval constraints the model is trained on.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
IF-RLVR trained models exhibit different instruction following behaviors compared to their non reinforcement trained counterparts.
“we also see that RLVR trained models exhibit different instruction following behaviors compared to their non reinforcement trained counterparts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.3 Changing the range of constraint variables · p. 6
Training on a different variable range consistently scores lower than training on wider or same ranges.
“Training on a different variable range consistently scores lower than the other two setups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
Increasing the number and variety of training constraints improves IF generalization.
“We find that increasing the number and variety of training constraints improves IF generalization.”
- Also stated in: § 4.2 Seen vs. Unseen Constraints · p. 5 · plain
“Nevertheless, we see that training on a larger set and larger variety of constraints is beneficial for generalization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Also stated in: § 4.2 Seen vs. Unseen Constraints · p. 5 · plain
- Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
IF-RLVR improves TÜLU-3-8B IFEval score from 82.4 to 92.2.
“With our new training techniques we improve the IFeval scores of a TÜLU-3-8B model from 82.4 to 92.2”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingnone given§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
IF-RLVR is effective for models from the OLMo family.
“and we also show that our approach is effective for models from the OLMo family.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.5 Teaching the basic units of precise IF · p. 7
The approach and model results in the best in- and out-of-domain instruction following performance on both IFEval and IFBENCH compared to other post-trained models.
“Comparing our final models to other post-trained (SFT, DPO, RLVR) models in Table 3, we find that our approach and model results in the best in- and out-of-domain instruction following performance on both IFEval and IFBENCH.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.1 Training on Multiple Constraints · p. 5
Training on a bigger combination of constraints leads to better performance compared to training on only up to 3 constraints per instance.
“As displayed in Figure 2, training on a bigger combination of constraints leads to better performance, compared to training on only up to 3 constraints per instance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.6 DPO · p. 7
Many rejected completions do not contain a single passing constraint out of 5 constraints (46%).
“Many of the rejected completions do not contain a single passing constraint out of 5 constraints (46%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1
RLVR significantly improves instruction following.
“show that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) significantly improves instruction following.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“we show how to use novel reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR) techniques to train models to be better at precise IF while maintaining performance on existing skills [15, 8].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Findingcitation§ Abstract · p. 1
IFBENCH consists of 58 new verifiable constraints that go beyond the 25 constraints in IFEval.
“58 new, diverse, and challenging verifiable out-of-domain constraints.”
- Also stated in: § 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3 · plain
“IFBENCH consists of 58 new verifiable constraints that go beyond the 25 constraints included in IFEval [36].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] [36] 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.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3 · plain
- Findingown data§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 4
IFTRAIN more than doubles the current set of train constraint types.
“This more than doubles the current set of train constraint types.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ 3.1 IF-RLVR Results · p. 4
IF-RLVR trained models outperform most of the current state-of-the-art models (besides o3).
“Our IF-RLVR trained models outperform most of the current state-of-the-art models (besides o3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
IF-RLVR improves TÜLU-3-8B IFBENCH score from 28.9 to 45.9.
“and the IFBENCH scores from 28.9 to 45.9.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingnone given§ 3.1 IF-RLVR Results · p. 4
The recipe can be successfully applied to 3 different model families: OLMo, Qwen 2.5, and Llama 3.1.
“We also show that our recipe can be successfully applied to 3 different model families: OLMo [18], Qwen 2.5 [26], and Llama 3.1 [27].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [18] [18] Team OLMo, Pete Walsh, Luca Soldaini, Dirk Groeneveld, Kyle Lo, Shane Arora, Akshita Bhagia, Yuling Gu, Shengyi Huang, Matt Jordan, et al. 2 olmo 2 furious. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00656 , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [26] [26] Qwen Team. Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [27] [27] Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , 2023. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Findingown data§ 4.7 RLVR for IF from Base · p. 8
IF-RLVR training from base, with a reasoning chat template, results in better generalization on the out-of-domain IFBENCH.
“IF-RLVR training from base, with a reasoning chat template, results in better generalization on the out-of-domain IFBENCH.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 20
This model scores higher on AlpacaEval 2 (31.6) compared to the model trained on only ground-truth reward signal.
“while scoring higher on AlpacaEval 2 (31.6)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.6 DPO · p. 8
GRPO training with IF verifiable rewards consistently outperforms DPO training on IFEval and IFBENCH, when training on the same prompts and starting from the same model.
“The results in Tab. 5 show that despite training on the same prompts and starting from the same model, GRPO training with IF verifiable rewards consistently outperforms the model trained with DPO on IFEval and IFBENCH.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 10
The verifiable accuracy is on average higher for the model that went through RLVR training.
“The verifiable accuracy, though, is on average higher for the model that went through RLVR training.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 7 Conclusion and Limitations · p. 10
Most models overfit on a small set of constraints.
“We show that most models overfit on a small set of constraints”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19
IFBENCH's more complex constraints include mathematical or algorithmic requirements, such as trigram overlap percentages and alphabet cycling.
“The more complex constraints include mathematical or algorithmic requirements, such as trigram overlap percentages and alphabet cycling”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.7 RLVR for IF from Base · p. 8
IF-RLVR training a base model leads to nearly the same IFEval performance as when using an instruct policy.
“In Table 6, we find that IF-RLVR training a base model leads to nearly the same IFEval performance as when using an instruct policy.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ Abstract · p. 1
The constraints in IFBENCH are out-of-domain relative to IFEval.
“58 new, diverse, and challenging verifiable out-of-domain constraints.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19
IFBENCH's more complex constraints include nested linguistic patterns, such as palindromes and alliteration progression.
“and nested linguistic patterns, such as palindromes and alliteration progression”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 20
After 1100 steps, this model achieves an IFEval score of 86.1.
“After 1100 steps, this model achieves an IFEval score of 86.1”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 20
Compared to the model trained on only ground-truth reward signal, this model scores slightly lower on instruction following.
“Compared to the model trained on only ground-truth reward signal (see Table 3), this model scores slightly lower on instruction following”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.6 DPO · p. 8
Starting with a model that has gone through both SFT and DPO training results in higher final IF performance.
“Further, starting with a model that has gone through both SFT and DPO training results in higher final IF performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 19
GRPO training with verifiable rewards for precise IF can sometimes result in models that over-prioritize the constraint over the full instruction.
“it can sometimes result in models that over-prioritize the constraint over the full instruction”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 20
This model still has more than a 5 point improvement over the base policy on instruction following.
“with still more than a 5 point improvement over the base policy”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.3 Changing the range of constraint variables · p. 6
Training on a diverse set of constraint variables improves generalization for in-domain constraints performance.
“This suggests that training on a diverse set of constraint variables improves generalization for in-domain constraints performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Study design and conductreasoning§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3
The final test prompts combine unseen prompts from WildChat with unseen constraints to prevent train-test contamination.
“To create the final test prompts, we add instantiated constraints to unseen, i.e. held out from release, prompts from WildChat [34].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [34] [34] Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. Wildchat: 1m chatgpt interaction logs in the wild. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation§ 3 IF-RLVR · p. 4
RLVR can be applied to precise instruction following because each constraint can be verified with a function.
“Training Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) [15] can be applied to the precise instruction following task, as each constraint can be verified with a function.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [15] [15] Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T \ " ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124 , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19
IFEval covers atomic constraints focusing on keyword frequency, basic formatting, template-based responses and simple transformations.
“IFEval [36], which covers atomic constraints focusing on keyword frequency, basic formatting, template-based responses and simple transformations”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] [36] 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.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data§ 4.7 RLVR for IF from Base · p. 8
IF-RLVR with reasoning leads to improved IF generalization.
“We conclude that IF-RLVR with reasoning leads to improved IF generalization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 10
Qwen2.5 tends to focus on the constraints rather than the general instruction.
“This indicates that Qwen2.5 tends to focus on the constraints rather than the general instruction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ 4.7 RLVR for IF from Base · p. 8
It is possible to perform RLVR training on a base model, leading to good math and reasoning performance.
“it has been shown that it is also possible to perform RLVR training on a base model, leading to good math and reasoning performance [21, 29, 31].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [21] [21] Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [29] [29] Yiping Wang, Qing Yang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Liliang Ren, Liyuan Liu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Xuehai He, Kuan Wang, Jianfeng Gao, et al. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in large language models with one training example. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20571 , 2025. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [31] [31] An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , 2025. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 7 Conclusion and Limitations · p. 10
Generalization is difficult.
“and that generalization is difficult.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 19
GRPO training with verifiable rewards for precise IF is great at teaching LLMs to follow output constraints.
“While GRPO training with verifiable rewards for precise IF is great at teaching LLMs to follow output constraints”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 9
Following verifiable output constraints can stand in conflict with following the main task mentioned in the instruction.
“Following (verifiable) output constraints can stand in conflict with following the main task mentioned in the instruction”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 10
The verifiable rewards teach the model to prioritize the constraints.
“The verifiable rewards teach the model to prioritize the constraints”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 54
- May combine two claims. 26
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 2Users naturally use constraints in their prompts.
“Users naturally use constraints in their prompts [34, 16]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [34] [34] Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. Wildchat: 1m chatgpt interaction logs in the wild. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [16] [16] Gili Lior, Asaf Yehudai, Ariel Gera, and Liat Ein-Dor. Wildifeval: Instruction following in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06573 , 2025. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 1 Introduction · p. 1IFEval consists of a set of 25 constraint templates, which can all be automatically verified using short python functions.
“This evaluation benchmark consists of a set of 25 constraint templates, which can all be automatically verified using short python functions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] [36] 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. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Previous works improved models' instruction following abilities through activation steering.
“through activation steering [22]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [22] [22] Alessandro Stolfo, Vidhisha Balachandran, Safoora Yousefi, Eric Horvitz, and Besmira Nushi. Improving instruction-following in language models through activation steering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12877 , 2024. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 2The Nemotron-4 340B technical report mentions that targeted synthetic IF data is generated by combining synthetic instructions with constraints from the IFEval taxonomy.
“The Nemotron-4 340B technical report [1] goes into more detail and mentions that targeted synthetic IF data is generated by combining synthetic instructions with constraints from the IFEval taxonomy.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] [1] Bo Adler, Niket Agarwal, Ashwath Aithal, Dong H Anh, Pallab Bhattacharya, Annika Brundyn, Jared Casper, Bryan Catanzaro, Sharon Clay, Jonathan Cohen, et al. Nemotron-4 340b technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11704 , 2024. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10There is theoretical support for the viability of RLVR.
“with theoretical support for its viability [2].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [2] [2] Noga Amit, Shafi Goldwasser, Orr Paradise, and Guy Rothblum. Models that prove their own correctness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15722 , 2024. - source
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19IFEval asks to include certain keywords, but does not specify how many times and that they should be numbers.
“where IFEval asks to include certain keywords, but does not specify how many times and that they should be numbers”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] [36] 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. source
The prompt list (Contribution) includes an instruction to use the keywords “finale” and “less” without specifying a count, supporting that part of the claim. But the Abstract gives “mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times” as an IFEval example, so the paper does not support a general claim that IFEval leaves frequency unspecified. These examples also do not require the keywords to be numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10FollowBench constraints are not verifiable and are evaluated using LLM-as-judges.
“These constraints are not verifiable and are evaluated using LLM-as-judges.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] [12] Yuxin Jiang, Yufei Wang, Xingshan Zeng, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Wei Wang. Followbench: A multi-level fine-grained constraints following benchmark for large language models. CoRR , 2023. - source
The Introduction and §3.2 say FollowBench uses LLM judges for open-ended instructions, for which rule-based assessment is extremely challenging. But they also say closed-ended instructions are assessed with rule-based programs, so the claim overgeneralizes when it says FollowBench constraints are not verifiable and are evaluated using LLM judges. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone given§ 6 Related Work · p. 10To the best of our knowledge, the only other work that generates automatically verifiable training and test data is VFF.
“To the best of our knowledge, the only other work that generates automatically verifiable training and test data is VFF [30]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [30] [30] Zhaoyang Wang, Jinqi Jiang, Huichi Zhou, Wenhao Zheng, Xuchao Zhang, Chetan Bansal, and Huaxiu Yao. Verifiable format control for large language model generations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 , pages 3499-3513, 2025. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10FollowBench looks at how models deal with an iteratively increasing amount of constraints, covering situation, style, and format constraints.
“FollowBench [12] looks at how models deal with an iteratively increasing amount of constraints, covering situation, style, and format constraints.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] [12] Yuxin Jiang, Yufei Wang, Xingshan Zeng, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Wei Wang. Followbench: A multi-level fine-grained constraints following benchmark for large language models. CoRR , 2023. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Previous works improved models' instruction following abilities through DPO training.
“DPO training [14]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] [14] Joongwon Kim, Anirudh Goyal, Aston Zhang, Bo Xiong, Rui Hou, Melanie Kambadur, Dhruv Mahajan, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Liang Tan. A systematic examination of preference learning through the lens of instruction-following. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors, Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 11062-11082, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 2Many models have designated sections in their technical reports on how they improve IF performance, and the most common approach is targeted synthetic data generation.
“Many models even have designated sections in their technical reports on how they improve IF performance - the most common approach is targeted synthetic data generation [32, 15, 1, 7].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim4 of 4 sources checked- cites [32] [32] An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , 2024. - source
Section 4.1 (Supervised Fine-tuning) has a designated instruction-following subsection describing generated instructions and verification code used to curate training data. This supports Qwen2.5 as an example of targeted synthetic data generation, but this report alone does not establish that it is the most common approach across models. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [15] [15] Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T \ " ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124 , 2024. - source
Section 3.1.2, “Synthesizing for Target Skills” (page unavailable), and the “Precise Instruction Following” section show that the Tülu 3 report has a dedicated discussion of targeted synthetic data for improving instruction following. This supports Tülu 3 as an example, but the paper does not establish that this is the most common approach across models or that many other technical reports have such sections. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [1] [1] Bo Adler, Niket Agarwal, Ashwath Aithal, Dong H Anh, Pallab Bhattacharya, Annika Brundyn, Jared Casper, Bryan Catanzaro, Sharon Clay, Jonathan Cohen, et al. Nemotron-4 340b technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11704 , 2024. - source
- cites [7] [7] Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024. - source
Section 4 (Post-Training) says the report details data-curation strategies to improve precise instruction following, and Section 4.3.1 (Code) describes generating synthetic training dialogues to address difficulty following coding instructions. This supports Llama 3 as an example, but the paper does not establish that targeted synthetic data generation is the most common approach across models’ technical reports. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10IFEval evaluates how models follow a set of 25 verifiable constraints targeting output formats.
“IFEval [36] evaluates how models follow a set of 25 verifiable constraints targeting output formats.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] [36] 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. source
The 'Instruction following verification' section says IFEval uses 25 verifiable instructions to evaluate models' instruction following. But the instructions are not limited to output formats: the same section gives word-count requirements, and the Abstract also gives keyword-frequency requirements. Describing all 25 as targeting output formats is therefore too narrow. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10InFoBench 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.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [19] [19] 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. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 , pages 13025-13048, 2024. - source
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 1 Introduction · p. 1IFEval has quickly saturated, with many leading models scoring 80+% at as small as 2B parameters.
“it has quickly saturated, with many leading models scoring 80+% at as small as 2B parameters [5, 15, 25].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites [5] [5] Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024. - source
The Introduction’s benchmark table reports IFEval scores above 80% for several models, including Llama 3 8B at 80.4%. It does not show a 2B-parameter model reaching that score or establish that IFEval has quickly saturated, so those parts of the claim are unsupported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [15] [15] Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T \ " ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124 , 2024. - source
Table 5 (Section 2.3) reports IFEval scores above 80% for several 70B models, and Section 6.4 reports an 8B run reaching 84.8%. These passages do not establish scores above 80% at 2B parameters or say that IFEval has saturated; Section 6.4's explicit saturation remark concerns GSM8K instead. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [25] [25] Gemma Team, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Tatiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ramé, Morgane Rivière, et al. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786 , 2025. - source
The performance table (p. 23) reports IFEval scores of 80.4 for Gemma 2 2B and 80.2 for Gemma 3 1B, supporting the point that small models can score above 80%. It does not establish that many leading models do so or that IFEval has quickly saturated. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Previous works improved models' instruction following abilities using RL with verifiable rewards.
“and using RL with verifiable rewards [15].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [15] [15] Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T \ " ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124 , 2024. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10LLMs' reasoning abilities decline when they also have to adhere to formatting constraints.
“LLMs' reasoning abilities, for example, decline when they also have to adhere to formatting constraints [24].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [24] [24] Zhi Rui Tam, Cheng-Kuang Wu, Yi-Lin Tsai, Chieh-Yen Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Yun-Nung Chen. Let me speak freely? a study on the impact of format restrictions on performance of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02442 , 2024. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19Compared to IFEval, IFBENCH's constraints are a bit more challenging.
“Compared to IFEval [36], which covers atomic constraints focusing on keyword frequency, basic formatting, template-based responses and simple transformations, IFBENCH's constraints are a bit more challenging.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] [36] 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. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been shown to be an effective approach for improving mathematical reasoning and coding abilities in language models.
“Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been shown to be an effective approach for improving mathematical reasoning and coding abilities in language models [15, 21, 8, 33, 10, 13]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites [15] [15] Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T \ " ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124 , 2024. - source
Section 6.2.1 reports improved test performance with RLVR on mathematical benchmarks. But Table 23 in Section 6.4 does not show a consistent coding improvement: HumanEval is unchanged from the DPO starting points, while HumanEval+ rises slightly at 8B and falls at 70B. The source therefore supports the mathematical-reasoning part, not the broader claim about improving coding abilities. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [21] [21] Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 , 2024. - source
Section 5.2.2 reports that reinforcement learning significantly improved the instruction-tuned model, and the paper's mathematical benchmark results show higher scores for DeepSeekMath-RL than DeepSeekMath-Instruct. The 'Observation about Gradient Coefficient' section describes rewards based on answer correctness. However, the coding results in §5.1.1 concern code and math training, not an improvement in coding ability from reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [8] [8] Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , 2025. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10VFF showed how their data improves IF performance using SFT and DPO training.
“showing how their data improves IF performance using SFT and DPO training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [30] [30] Zhaoyang Wang, Jinqi Jiang, Huichi Zhou, Wenhao Zheng, Xuchao Zhang, Chetan Bansal, and Huaxiu Yao. Verifiable format control for large language model generations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 , pages 3499-3513, 2025. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Models can struggle at doing constrained generation with fine-grained constraints.
“And models can struggle at doing constrained generation with fine-grained constraints [23].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [23] [23] Jiao Sun, Yufei Tian, Wangchunshu Zhou, Nan Xu, Qian Hu, Rahul Gupta, John Frederick Wieting, Nanyun Peng, and Xuezhe Ma. Evaluating large language models on controlled generation tasks. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10The issues of train-test contamination and model generalization have been pointed out in previous works.
“The issues of train-test contamination and model generalization have also been pointed out in previous works [6, 20, 4].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites [6] [6] Shahriar Golchin and Mihai Surdeanu. Time travel in llms: Tracing data contamination in large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [20] [20] Manley Roberts, Himanshu Thakur, Christine Herlihy, Colin White, and Samuel Dooley. To the cutoff... and beyond? a longitudinal perspective on llm data contamination. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [4] [4] Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Florian E Dorner, and Moritz Hardt. Training on the test task confounds evaluation and emergence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07890 , 2024. - source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 9The notion of an 'instruction hierarchy' can be used to prioritize either the relative ranking of following system versus user prompts in a query along with how to prioritize different pieces of a request relative to each other.
“The notion of an 'instruction hierarchy' can be used to prioritize either the relative ranking of following system versus user prompts in a query along with how to prioritize different pieces of a request relative to eachother [28].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [28] [28] Eric Wallace, Kai Xiao, Reimar Leike, Lilian Weng, Johannes Heidecke, and Alex Beutel. The instruction hierarchy: Training llms to prioritize privileged instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13208 , 2024. - source
The introductory discussion says system messages take precedence over user messages, and user messages over third-party content. Section 3 describes resolving conflicts between higher- and lower-privileged instructions. Our copy does not establish a priority ranking among different parts of a single request, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3The final IFBENCH benchmark consists of 300 prompts.
“The final benchmark consists of 300 prompts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3IFBENCH constraints cover 7 categories: count, ratio, words, sentence, format, custom, copy.
“These constraints cover 7 different broader categories: count, ratio, words, sentence, format, custom, copy.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 3 IF-RLVR · p. 4IF-RLVR training works for base models and for post-trained models.
“IF-RLVR training works for base models, using a special chat template (see Appendix F), and for post-trained models, using their own chat templates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.6 DPO · p. 7Most models struggle with precisely following a lot of the prompts, and even when relaxing the requirement to at most 1 constraint wrong, the percentages are less than half.
“Table 4, shows how most models struggle with precisely following a lot of our prompts, and even when relaxing the requirement and counting cases where models got not more than 1 constraint wrong, the percentages are less than half.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 1 Introduction · p. 2Many models prioritize the task, while IF-RLVR trained models tend to prioritize the constraint.
“Many models would prioritize the task, while IF-RLVR trained models tend to prioritize the constraint”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.5 Teaching the basic units of precise IF · p. 7The final two IF-RLVR models improve over the base DPO model in all categories, including counting, inserting keywords, formatting, and following length constraints.
“As seen in Table 2, our final two models (from base vs. from instruct) improve over the base model (in this case a DPO trained model) in all categories, such as in counting, inserting the right amount of keywords, formatting and in following length constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3 Changing the range of constraint variables · p. 6Training on a wider variable range performs comparably and often even better than training on the same range.
“Though training on a wider variable range, performs comparably and often even better than training on the same range.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ 1 Introduction · p. 2Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct tends to prioritize the constraint over the instruction.
“Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, for example, tends to prioritize the constraint over the instruction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.6 DPO · p. 7Most LLMs get the same easy instances right and the same hard instances wrong, which makes the creation of preference pairs more difficult.
“We also find that most LLMs get the same easy instances right and the same hard instances wrong, which makes the creation of preference pairs more difficult.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.1 Training on Multiple Constraints · p. 5Training on up to 5 or 6 constraints still leads to better generalization on IFEval and IFBENCH, despite IFEval having up to 3 constraints and IFBENCH up to 2.
“Interestingly, instructions in IFEval have up to 3 constraints and up to 2 constraints in IFBENCH, but training on up to 5 or 6 constraints still leads to better generalization on these benchmarks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3Each instruction in IFBENCH contains either one or two constraints.
“Each instruction in the benchmark contains either one or two constraints.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1Most models strongly overfit on a small set of verifiable constraints from benchmarks testing precise instruction following and are not able to generalize well to unseen output constraints.
“We find that most models strongly overfit on a small set of verifiable constraints from the benchmarks that test these abilities, a skill called precise instruction following, and are not able to generalize well to unseen output constraints.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 1 · boosted
“Most models strongly overfit to this small set of constraints.”
- Also stated in: § 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 2 · hedged
“This discrepancy between the results indicates that most models overfit to a small set of verifiable constraints and do not possess sufficient capabilities to generalize as well to unseen constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 1 · boosted
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2IF-RLVR increases Qwen-2.5-7B base model to 87.8 on IFEval and 54.7 on IFBENCH.
“Similarly, IF-RLVR increases a Qwen-2.5-7B base model to scores of 87.8 (IFEval) and 54.7 (IFBENCH)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.4 Removing Categories · p. 6Removing constraints from LENGTH and KEYWORDS categories harms IFEval performance the most, while removing CHANGE CASES and DETECTABLE FORMAT barely affects performance (model achieving IFEval accuracy of 89.65).
“Removing the constraints from the LENGTH and the KEYWORDS categories harms IFEval performance the most, while removing constraints from the CHANGE CASES and DETECTABLE FORMAT categories barely affect performance with the model achieving an IFEval accuracy of 89.65 (see Fig. 6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.6 DPO · p. 7Out of all instances that models get completely correct, 54% have only 1 constraint and only 2% have 5 constraints.
“Out of all the instances that models get completely correct, 54% have only 1 constraint and only 2% have 5 constraints.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ 4.5 Teaching the basic units of precise IF · p. 7The performance on other benchmarks is low for IF-RLVR Qwen2.5 because this base model policy has not been post-trained.
“Note that the performance on other benchmarks is low for IF-RLVR Qwen2.5, as this base model policy has not been post-trained.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.6 DPO · p. 7Qwen-72B stands out: 26% of its completions adhere to all constraints in an instruction and 100% of its completions get only 1 out of up to 5 constraints wrong.
“The model that stands out is Qwen-72B, where 26% of its completions adhere to all constraints in an instruction and 100% of its completions get only 1 out of up to 5 constraints wrong.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ E Mitigating Reward Hacking · p. 20After 1100 steps, this model achieves an IFBENCH score of 30.
“and an IFBENCH score of 30”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ D.1 Length Analysis · p. 19IF-RLVR trained models tend to generate shorter responses, with an average token length of 210.
“the IF-RLVR trained models tend to generate shorter reponses, with an average token length of 210”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ D.1 Length Analysis · p. 19Frontier models on the left side of Figure 1 generate IFBench responses that are on average 2214 tokens long.
“The frontier models on the left side of Figure 1 generate IFBench responses that are on average 2214 token long”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ D.1 Length Analysis · p. 19Multi-turn conversations provide an average input length of 408 tokens (consisting of prompt, response, prompt).
“the multi-turn conversations provide an average input length of 408 tokens (consisting of prompt, response, prompt)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ 1 Introduction · p. 1The constraints in IFBENCH cover important skills like counting, formatting, sentence/word/character manipulations, and copying.
“The constraints in IFBENCH cover important skills like counting, formatting, sentence/word/character manipulations, and copying.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.8 RLVR for Multi-turn IF · p. 9IF-RLVR-MULTI mostly leads to an improved performance on the multi-turn setup of IFBENCH, compared to IF-RLVR-SINGLE, without achieving comparable single-turn performance.
“IF-RLVR-MULTI mostly leads to an improved performance on the multi-turn setup of IFBENCH, compared to IF-RLVR-SINGLE, without achieving comparable single-turn performance (Table 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ D.1 Length Analysis · p. 19Single-turn IFBENCH prompts have an average length of 76 tokens.
“The single-turn IFBENCH prompts have on average a length of 76 tokens”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.8 RLVR for Multi-turn IF · p. 9IF-RLVR-MIX improves single-turn performance, sometimes beyond improvements from IF-RLVR-SINGLE, while reaching a comparable multi-turn performance.
“IF-RLVR-MIX improves single-turn performance, sometimes beyond improvements from IF-RLVR-SINGLE, while reaching a comparable multi-turn performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 10tulu3-70B's IF accuracy correlates the most with the LLM-as-judge scores, and Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct's IF accuracy is the most negatively correlated with LLM-as-judge scores, out of the set of models {claude-3-7-sonnet, Gemini, Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, tulu3-70B}.
“We find that tulu3-70B's IF accuracy correlates the most with the LLM-as-judge scores and that Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct's IF accuracy is the most negatively correlated with LLM-as-judge scores, out of this set of models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ 1 Introduction · p. 2There is a tension between following the task and adhering to the constraint.
“There is a tension between following the task of writing a recipe and adhering to the constraint.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3Every instance went through a human annotation process to verify prompt and constraint compatibility.
“Every instance went through a human annotation process to verify the prompt and constraint compatibility (i.e. a coding related constraint, for example, does not fit with a prompt asking for a summary).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The human annotation process correctly verifies prompt-constraint compatibility.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3Combining unseen prompts with unseen constraints prevents accidental train-test contamination and allows appropriate evaluation of generalization.
“By combining unseen prompts with unseen constraints, we prevent accidental train-test contamination and can appropriately evaluate language models' abilities to generalize on the task of precise instruction following.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3The new constraints were created manually by collecting feedback from LM users and writing to cover core IF skills.
“The new constraints we introduce were created manually - sourced by collecting feedback from LM users beyond the authors on the types of constraints they have tried with models, or manually written to cover core IF skills.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ 3 IF-RLVR · p. 4The combination of contradictory constraints is prevented by maintaining a dictionary of constraint conflicts.
“We prevent the combination of contradictory constraints by maintaining a dictionary of constraint conflicts.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1 Training on Multiple Constraints · p. 5 · plain
“We prevent the combination of contradictory constraints by maintaining a dictionary of constraint conflicts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The dictionary of constraint conflicts prevents all contradictory constraint combinations.
- Also stated in: § 4.1 Training on Multiple Constraints · p. 5 · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3The benchmark computes both strict and loose accuracy, where loose accuracy cleans the model's output by removing first/last lines and certain font modifiers.
“Similarly to the original IFEval, we compute both strict and loose accuracy, where the strict accuracy verifies if the constraint is followed correctly, and the loose accuracy additionally cleans the model's output by removing first/last lines and certain font modifiers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 2 IFBENCH & IFTRAIN: Measuring and Training Precise IF · p. 3Constraints were filtered to those that can be paired with a Python verification function, making for reproducible evaluation and training tools.
“Then, we filtered constraints for the benchmark to those that can be easily paired with a verification function written in Python, making for reproducible evaluation and training tools.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 10The base policy models are better at following general instructions, while IF-RLVR trained models are better at following the constraints.
“This indicates that the base policy models are better at following general instructions, while IF-RLVR trained models are better at following the constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ B Out-of-Distribution Train Constraints · p. 18Constraints are added to an unseen SFT prompt to form the final prompt.
“Constraints are added to an unseen SFT prompt to form the final prompt.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 9In order to avoid a clear conflict within our benchmark dataset, we manually checked samples to avoid situations where a model could only fulfill either the question or the constraint.
“In order to avoid a clear conflict within our benchmark dataset, we manually checked samples to avoid situations where a model could only fulfill either the question or the constraint.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisereasoning§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Multiple benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate instruction following.
“Multiple benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate instruction following.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone given§ 6 Related Work · p. 10One approach to investigate a model's abilities to generalize on a given task is to build a new unseen test set.
“One approach to investigate a model's abilities to generalize on a given task is to build a new unseen test set.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ 6 Related Work · p. 10IFBENCH additionally investigates how IF-RLVR training affects IF generalization.
“IFBENCH additionally investigates how IF-RLVR training affects IF generalization.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10GSM8K benchmark was perturbed using templates to create GSM8K-symbolic.
“This has, for example, been done for the GSM8K benchmark, which was perturbed using templates to create GSM8K-symbolic [17].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [17] [17] Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Hooman Shahrokhi, Oncel Tuzel, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone given§ 4.7 RLVR for IF from Base · p. 8Base models before RLVR training cannot be evaluated because they do not have a chat template.
“(Base models before RLVR training cannot be evaluated as they don't have a chat template.)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ A Out-of-Distribution Test Constraints · p. 16Constraints are added to an unseen WildChat prompt to form the final prompt except for in the 'custom' instruction group.
“Constraints are added to an unseen WildChat prompt to form the final prompt except for in the”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Models were shown to overfit on small benchmarks like AIME'24.
“Similar findings were made in the reasoning domain, where models were shown to overfit on small benchmarks like AIME'24 [9].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] [9] Andreas Hochlehnert, Hardik Bhatnagar, Vishaal Udandarao, Samuel Albanie, Ameya Prabhu, and Matthias Bethge. A sober look at progress in language model reasoning: Pitfalls and paths to reproducibility. 2025. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoning§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19There is no overlap between the two evaluation sets (IFBENCH and IFEval).
“we could ensure that there is no overlap between the two evaluation sets”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 9Models exhibit different ways to prioritize instructions composed within a prompt.
“Models exhibit different ways to prioritize instructions composed within a prompt.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 3 IF-RLVR · p. 4The new training constraints are separate from the constraints in IFBENCH.
“our new unseen training constraint taxonomy (which is separate from the constraints in IFBENCH).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ A Out-of-Distribution Test Constraints · p. 16The constraints in Table 8 are out-of-distribution for IFBENCH.
“IFBENCH out-of-distribution constraints”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone given§ B Out-of-Distribution Train Constraints · p. 18The constraints in Table 9 are out-of-distribution for IFTrain.
“IFTrain out-of-distribution constraints”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 6 Related Work · p. 10Previous works improved models' instruction following abilities by scaling up the instruction fine-tuning stage.
“Previous works improved models' instruction following abilities by scaling up the instruction fine-tuning stage [3]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [3] [3] Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , 2024. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisereasoning§ 5 Reward Hacking and the Instruction Hierarchy · p. 9A model has to trade-off between completing the task while also adhering to the constraint.
“and a model has to trade-off between completing the task while also adhering to the constraint.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone given§ 7 Conclusion and Limitations · p. 10IFBENCH is a benchmark to evaluate precise, verifiable instruction following.
“We create IFBENCH, a challenging and unseen benchmark to evaluate precise, verifiable instruction following.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ D.2 Constraint Diversity · p. 19All constraints were human-written.
“As all constraints were human-written”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Precise instruction following is important for language models to generate useful outputs.
“A crucial factor for successful human and AI interaction is the ability of language models or chatbots to follow human instructions precisely.”
“Following instructions exactly is a crucial skill for a language model to have, in order for it to generate a useful output that corresponds to the entirety of a user's specifications and not just the general topic.”
The paper relies on this without support.
IFEval is the most popular benchmark for precise instruction following.
“with IFEval [36] being the most popular benchmark”
The paper relies on this without support.
The verification functions correctly verify the constraints.
“Then, we filtered constraints for the benchmark to those that can be easily paired with a verification function written in Python, making for reproducible evaluation and training tools.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The dictionary of constraint conflicts prevents all contradictory constraint combinations.
“We prevent the combination of contradictory constraints by maintaining a dictionary of constraint conflicts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The human annotation process correctly verifies prompt-constraint compatibility.
“Every instance went through a human annotation process to verify the prompt and constraint compatibility”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many constraints used by users in the wild do not have an easily verifiable ground truth.
“many constraints used by users in the wild are constraints that do not have an easily verifiable ground truth.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The general reward model provides signal for whether the response answers the prompt.
“The intuition is that while the verifiable reward checks for the adherence to the output constraint, the general reward model provides signal for whether the response answers the prompt.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
TÜLU IFBENCH result differs from the reported table result
MajorThe introduction says IF-RLVR raises TÜLU's IFBENCH score to 45.9, but Table 3 reports 44.6 for the IF-RLVR TÜLU-DPO model.
“the IFBENCH scores from 28.9 to 45.9”
“| IF-RLVR TÜLU-DPO 8b | 92.2 | 44.6 | 21.3 | 83.2 | 66.4 | 68.9 |”
Table 6 labels trained-model results as before training
MinorTable 6 says base models cannot be evaluated before IF-RLVR, yet its last two rows are also labeled "before IF-RLVR" and give scores for all three base models. Those rows contain the trained-model results discussed in the surrounding text.
“| before IF-RLVR | IFEval | 88.2 | 87.8 | 70.4 | 92.2 | 89.1 | 74.5 |”
“Table 6: Comparing model performance on IFEval and IFBENCH, before and after IF-RLVR training, for base and instruct models. (Base models before RLVR training cannot be evaluated as they don't have a chat template.)”
TÜLU-DPO pretraining IFBENCH scores disagree across tables
MinorTable 6 gives the instruct TÜLU-DPO model a pre-IF-RLVR IFBENCH score of 25.2, while Table 3 gives TÜLU-DPO 25.5.
“| before IF-RLVR | IFBench | na | na | na | 25.2 | 31.3 | 16.7 |”
“| TÜLU-DPO | 81.1 | 25.5 | 33.5 | 84.3 | 68.7 | 68.7 |”
Reward-hacking example is cited as the wrong figure
MinorAppendix E points to Figure 5 for an example of over-optimization, but Figure 5 is the variable-range experiment. The over-optimization example is captioned Figure 7.
“An example of such an output is given in Figure 5.”
“Figure 7: An example output of a model being overoptimized to follow constraints.”
Qwen IFBENCH result differs from the reported table result
MinorThe introduction reports 54.7 for the IF-RLVR Qwen-2.5-7B base model, whereas Tables 3 and 6 report 53.7.
“IF-RLVR increases a Qwen-2.5-7B base model to scores of 87.8 (IFEval) and 54.7 (IFBENCH)”
“| IF-RLVR qwen2.5 7b | 87.8 | 53.7 | 1.1 | 15.3 | 59.4 | 26.0 |”
TÜLU improvement uses a different starting score from the identified policy
MinorThe introduction gives 82.4 as the starting IFEval score for the model reaching 92.2. Table 3 identifies the IF-RLVR model as TÜLU-DPO, whose starting IFEval score is 81.1; 82.4 belongs to a separate TÜLU row.
“we improve the IFeval scores of a TÜLU-3-8B model from 82.4 to 92.2”
“| TÜLU-DPO | 81.1 | 25.5 | 33.5 | 84.3 | 68.7 | 68.7 |”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [6][6] Shahriar Golchin and Mihai Surdeanu. Time travel in llms: Tracing data contamination in large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
- [7][7] Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024. - · arXiv
- [17][17] Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Hooman Shahrokhi, Oncel Tuzel, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
- [20][20] Manley Roberts, Himanshu Thakur, Christine Herlihy, Colin White, and Samuel Dooley. To the cutoff... and beyond? a longitudinal perspective on llm data contamination. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
- [32][32] An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , 2024. - · arXiv
- [34][34] Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. Wildchat: 1m chatgpt interaction logs in the wild. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning
Agrawal, L. A., Tan, S., Soylu, D., Ziems, N., Khare, R., Opsahl-Ong, K., Singhvi, A., Shandilya, H., Ryan, M. J., Jiang, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19457 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems
Kim, Y., Gu, K., Park, C., Park, C., Schmidgall, S., Heydari, A. A., Yan, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhuang, Y., Liu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08296 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation
Malik, S., Pyatkin, V., Land, S., Morrison, J., Smith, N. A., Hajishirzi, H., & Lambert, N. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.01937 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“We find that our benchmark is strongly predictive of RM performance in best-of-N sampling, and we identify an important factor affecting a RM’s performance in RLHF: whether or not the policy model and RM come from the same model lineage.”
Self-citationRubricEval: A Rubric-Level Meta-Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Judges in Instruction Following
Pan, T., Lin, X., Yang, W., He, Q., Chen, S., Qi, L., Xu, W., Feng, H., Xu, B., & Xiao, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.25133
“RewardBench2(Malik et al., 2025) evaluates reward models on diverse preference pair.”
InfluentialOctoBench: 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
Nanbeige4.2-3B: Unlocking Agentic Capabilities in a Compact Model
Lab, N., :, Yang, C., Huang, C., Lan, F., Chen, H., Zhou, H., Song, H., Cao, J., Zhu, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.22083
Cracking the Case Together: Role Perceptions in Human-AI Mystery Solving Dialogues
Breckner, K., Schönböck, J., Kovacs, C., Hirschmann, F., Neumayr, T., Reyskens, E., & Augstein, M. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791013
AdaMoA: Enhancing Mixture-of-Agents via Task-Adaptive Architecture Optimization
Lv, W., Xu, H., Xu, Y., Liu, J., & Xu, Z. (2026) · International Workshop on Quality of Service · doi:10.1109/iwqos70441.2026.11661164
: Open Reinforcement Learning Recipes for Visual Reasoning
Sarch, G. H., Cai, L., Wang, Q., Wu, H., Chen, D., & Liu, Z. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-36969-7_32
AI-Assisted Reverse Engineering of Software Requirements from Industrial Control Code
Martus, B. L. (2026) · International Congress on Smart Agriculture and Sustainable Systems (SmartAgri&SuSY) · doi:10.1109/smartagrisusy71530.2026.11690738
- Authors
- Pyatkin, V., Malik, S., Graf, V., Ivison, H., Huang, S., Dasigi, P., Lambert, N., & Hajishirzi, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 54870-54896
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2507.02833
- OpenAlex
- W4417156119
- Semantic Scholar
- 33eec04faba9f02e3855d17b8c267bd48064b663
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- FWCI
- 3.79
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, large language models, chatbots, human-AI interaction
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-03.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-03.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
