TOD-ProcBench: Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following in Task-Oriented Dialogues
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In real-world task-oriented dialogue (TOD) settings, agents are required to strictly adhere to complex instructions while conducting multi-turn conversations with customers. These instructions are typically presented in natural language format and include general guidelines and step-by-step procedures with complex constraints. Existing TOD benchmarks often oversimplify the complex nature of these instructions by reducing them to simple schemas composed of intents, slots, and API call configurations. To address this gap and systematically benchmark LLMs' instruction-following capabilities, we propose TOD-ProcBench, a challenging benchmark featuring complex process instructions with intricate, fine-grained constraints that evaluates various LLMs' abilities to understand and follow instructions in multi-turn TODs. Our benchmark dataset comprises instruction documents derived from the high-quality ABCD dataset with corresponding conversations under human quality control. We formulate fine-grained constraints and action procedures as multi-level condition-action instruction statements. We design three tasks to comprehensively benchmark LLMs' complex instruction-following capabilities in multi-turn TODs. Task 1 evaluates how LLMs retrieve the most relevant statement from a complex instruction and predict the corresponding next action. In Task 2, we synthesize instruction-violating responses by injecting inconsistencies and manipulating the original instructions, and then we analyze how effectively LLMs can identify instruction-violating responses. Task 3 investigates LLMs' abilities in conditional generation of instruction-following responses based on the original complex instructions. Additionally, we conduct studies on the impact of multilingual settings and different instruction text formats on compliance performance. We release our benchmark under the Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2025.
Builds on
16 of 25 references.
References · 16
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2019Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Datasetcited by 426
- 2024Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Compositioncited by 147
- 2021Action-Based Conversations Dataset: A Corpus for Building More In-Depth Task-Oriented Dialogue Systemscited by 73
- 2022Conditional Generation with a Question-Answering Blueprintcited by 44
- 2019Semantically Conditioned Dialog Response Generation via Hierarchical Disentangled Self-Attentioncited by 43
- 2020STAR: A Schema-Guided Dialog Dataset for Transfer Learningcited by 43
- 2024Reliable LLM-based User Simulator for Task-Oriented Dialogue Systemscited by 24
- 2023Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Knowledge Augmentationcited by 21
- 2025SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraintscited by 21
- 2025SOP-Bench: Complex Industrial SOPs for Evaluating LLM Agentscited by 19
- 2024FLAP: Flow-Adhering Planning with Constrained Decoding in LLMscited by 11
4 more
- 2023Personalizing Task-oriented Dialog Systems via Zero-shot Generalizable Reward Functioncited by 7
- 2023Improving Generalization in Task-oriented Dialogues with Workflows and Action Planscited by 3
- 2024Chain of Thought Explanation for Dialogue State Trackingcited by 3
- 2023Workflow-Guided Response Generation for Task-Oriented Dialoguecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.