LLMs can be easily Confused by Instructional Distractions
Yerin Hwang, Yongil Kim, Jahyun Koo, Taegwan Kang, Hyunkyung Bae, Kyomin Jung
Abstract
Despite the fact that large language models (LLMs) show exceptional skill in instruction following tasks, this strength can turn into a vulnerability when the models are required to disregard certain instructions. Instruction following tasks typically involve a clear task description and input text containing the target data to be processed. However, when the input itself resembles an instruction, confusion may arise, even if there is explicit prompting to distinguish between the task instruction and the input. We refer to this phenomenon as instructional distraction. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark, named DIM-Bench, specifically designed to assess LLMs' performance under instructional distraction. The benchmark categorizes real-world instances of instructional distraction and evaluates LLMs across four instruction tasks: rewriting, proofreading, translation, and style transfer-alongside five input tasks: reasoning, code generation, mathematical reasoning, bias detection, and question answering. Our experimental results reveal that even the most advanced LLMs are susceptible to instructional distraction, often failing to accurately follow user intent in such cases. * These languages are commonly supported by Llama 3.1, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4o. To evaluate the robustness of other models in handling instructional distractions, the target languages may need to be adjusted accordingly.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 9445b6cc-09db-49b7-bf53-19de56406d4eCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on8
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- LIMA: Less Is More for AlignmentChunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srinivasan Iyer et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 1,486 citations
- Cross-Task Generalization via Natural Language Crowdsourcing InstructionsSwaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Hannaneh HajishirziACL 2022 · 887 citations
- Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated InstructionsYizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu et al.ACL 2023 · 540 citations
Related papers
- Evaluating the Instruction-Following Robustness of Large Language Models to Prompt InjectionZekun Li, Baolin Peng, Pengcheng He, Xifeng YanEMNLP 2024 · 15 citations
- FollowBench: A Multi-level Fine-grained Constraints Following Benchmark for Large Language ModelsYuxin Jiang, Yufei Wang, Xingshan Zeng, Wanjun Zhong et al.ACL 2024 · 10 citations
- Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction FollowingZhiyuan Zeng, Jiatong Yu, Tianyu Gao, Yu Meng et al.ICLR 2024 · 299 citations
- Metric Calculating Benchmark: Code-Verifiable Complicate Instruction Following Benchmark for Large Language ModelsHyeonseok Moon, Seongtae Hong, Jaehyung Seo, Heuiseok LimEMNLP 2025
- Can Large Language Models Understand Real-World Complex Instructions?Qianyu He, Jie Zeng, Wenhao Huang, Lina Chen et al.AAAI 2024 · 99 citations
