RefuteBench: Evaluating Refuting Instruction-Following for Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The application scope of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly expanding. In practical use, users might provide feedback based on the model's output, hoping for a responsive model that can complete responses according to their feedback. Whether the model can appropriately respond to users' refuting feedback and consistently follow through with execution has not been thoroughly analyzed. In light of this, this paper proposes a comprehensive benchmark, RefuteBench, covering tasks such as question answering, machine translation, and email writing. The evaluation aims to assess whether models can positively accept feedback in form of refuting instructions and whether they can consistently adhere to user demands throughout the conversation. We conduct evaluations on numerous LLMs and find that LLMs are stubborn, i.e. exhibit inclination to their internal knowledge, often failing to comply with user feedback. Additionally, as the length of the conversation increases, models gradually forget the user's stated feedback and roll back to their own responses. We further propose a recall-and-repeat prompts as a simple and effective way to enhance the model's responsiveness to feedback.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2024.
Builds on
31 of 43 references.
References · 31
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,080
19 more
- 2022Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformercited by 976
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 738
- 2022Large Language Models Can Self-Improvecited by 656
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 622
- 2021Editing Factual Knowledge in Language Modelscited by 548
- 2023Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunitiescited by 367
- 2023Adaptive Chameleon or Stubborn Sloth: Revealing the Behavior of Large Language Models in Knowledge Conflictscited by 333
- 2023MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questionscited by 292
- 2023Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning?cited by 284
- 2023Evaluating the Ripple Effects of Knowledge Editing in Language Modelscited by 238
- 2023Fine-tuning Language Models for Factualitycited by 219
- 2023PMET: Precise Model Editing in a Transformercited by 170
- 2023SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 157
- 2022Learning to Break the Loop: Analyzing and Mitigating Repetitions for Neural Text Generationcited by 90
- 2023Instruction-following Evaluation through Verbalizer Manipulationcited by 30
- 2023Understanding In-Context Learning from Repetitionscited by 27
- 2023Towards Better Evaluation of Instruction-Following: A Case-Study in Summarizationcited by 18
- 2023Trace and Edit Relation Associations in GPTcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.
10 papers.
- 2024Self-play with Execution Feedback: Improving Instruction-following Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 73
- 2025Scaling Reasoning, Losing Control: Evaluating Instruction Following in Large Reasoning Modelscited by 28
- 2024Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following?cited by 26
- 2024Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions?cited by 25
- 2025Spotlight Your Instructions: Instruction-following with Dynamic Attention Steeringcited by 18
- 2024See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknessescited by 15
- 2025Feedback Friction: LLMs Struggle to Fully Incorporate External Feedbackcited by 11
- 2024MMMT-IF: A Challenging Multimodal Multi-Turn Instruction Following Benchmarkcited by 8
- 2025RefuteBench 2.0 -- Agentic Benchmark for Dynamic Evaluation of LLM Responses to Refutation Instructioncited by 2
- 2026ReIn: Conversational Error Recovery with Reasoning Inceptioncited by 0
- 2026ReIn: Conversational Error Recovery with Reasoning Inception19 Feb 2026
- 2025Feedback Friction: LLMs Struggle to Fully Incorporate External Feedback13 Jun 2025
- 2025Scaling Reasoning, Losing Control: Evaluating Instruction Following in Large Reasoning Models20 May 2025
- 2025Spotlight Your Instructions: Instruction-following with Dynamic Attention Steering17 May 2025
- 2025RefuteBench 2.0 -- Agentic Benchmark for Dynamic Evaluation of LLM Responses to Refutation Instruction25 Feb 2025
- 2024Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following?18 Oct 2024
- 2024Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions?18 Oct 2024
- 2024MMMT-IF: A Challenging Multimodal Multi-Turn Instruction Following Benchmark26 Sep 2024
- 2024See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses16 Aug 2024
- 2024Self-play with Execution Feedback: Improving Instruction-following Capabilities of Large Language Models19 Jun 2024