mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When Instructions Multiply: Measuring and Estimating LLM Capabilities of Multiple Instructions Following

arXiv 2509.21051 ↗First posted 25 Sep 2025cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world scenarios, it becomes crucial to understand their ability to follow multiple instructions simultaneously. To systematically evaluate these capabilities, we introduce two specialized benchmarks for fundamental domains where multiple instructions following is important: Many Instruction-Following Eval (ManyIFEval) for text generation with up to ten instructions, and Style-aware Mostly Basic Programming Problems (StyleMBPP) for code generation with up to six instructions. Our experiments with the created benchmarks across ten LLMs reveal that performance consistently degrades as the number of instructions increases. Furthermore, given the fact that evaluating all the possible combinations of multiple instructions is computationally impractical in actual use cases, we developed three types of regression models that can estimate performance on both unseen instruction combinations and different numbers of instructions which are not used during training. We demonstrate that a logistic regression model using instruction count as an explanatory variable can predict performance of following multiple instructions with approximately 10% error, even for unseen instruction combinations. We show that relatively modest sample sizes (500 for ManyIFEval and 300 for StyleMBPP) are sufficient for performance estimation, enabling efficient evaluation of LLMs under various instruction combinations.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2025.

Builds on

21 of 34 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  4. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
  5. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  6. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
  7. 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,125
  8. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  9. 2022Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Taskscited by 868
  10. 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 310
  11. 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 302
  12. 2024Improving Instruction-Following in Language Models through Activation Steeringcited by 160
9 more
  1. 2024Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Compositioncited by 152
  2. 2023Anchor Points: Benchmarking Models with Much Fewer Examplescited by 86
  3. 2024MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixturescited by 74
  4. 2023Can Large Language Models Understand Real-World Complex Instructions?cited by 69
  5. 2024CFBench: A Comprehensive Constraints-Following Benchmark for LLMscited by 67
  6. 2024Measuring and Controlling Instruction (In)Stability in Language Model Dialogscited by 53
  7. 2024Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions?cited by 26
  8. 2025Spotlight Your Instructions: Instruction-following with Dynamic Attention Steeringcited by 21
  9. 2025CodeIF: Benchmarking the Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.

5 papers.