The paper investigates how large language models balance instruction-following with pattern completion when the two objectives conflict. By creating dialogues where a user instruction to act in a target way T is opposed by assistant turns that demonstrate a competing pattern P, the authors measure instruction-following rates across 13 models and 16 instructions over up to 50 turns. Results show wide variability (1%–99%) in instruction adherence, with robustness influenced by instruction content, output format, and chain-of-thought reasoning, but overall instruction-following remains brittle under induction pressure.
arXiv:2603. 23530v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models often fail to satisfy formatting instructions when they must simultaneously perform demanding tasks.
arXiv:2608.28648v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study how instruction-tuned LLMs arbitrate direct conflicts between system and user instructions. We introduce a benchmark of 41 paired constraints...
arXiv:2606. 07808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning language models deployed in agentic workflows must follow an instruction hierarchy: when instructions from different sources conflict, the model should obey the highest-privilege applicable instruction.
arXiv:2608. 13430v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Instruction-tuned language models achieve strong performance across a range of generation tasks, but have also recently been shown to exhibit verbalized overconfidence.
arXiv:2607. 19257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade.
Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models.
arXiv:2606. 05976v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent works show that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces, despite their ability to correct errors from external sources.
arXiv:2510. 07315v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check.
arXiv:2603. 03824v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans often become more self-aware under threat, yet can lose self-awareness when absorbed in a task; we hypothesize that language models exhibit environment-dependent \textit{evaluation awareness}.
arXiv:2602. 06941v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models can recover mid-generation from task-misaligned activation steering, producing explicit verbal restarts (e.
arXiv:2608. 02639v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production prompts rarely carry a single instruction.
arXiv:2604. 22027v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed.