RIFT: Reordered Instruction Following Testbed To Evaluate Instruction Following in Singular Multistep Prompt Structures
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon for complex workflows, yet their ability to maintain flow of instructions remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks conflate task complexity with structural ordering, making it difficult to isolate the impact of prompt topology on performance. We introduce RIFT, Reordered Instruction Following Testbed, to assess instruction following by disentangling structure from content. Using rephrased Jeopardy! question-answer pairs, we test LLMs across two prompt structures: linear prompts, which progress sequentially, and jumping prompts, which preserve identical content but require non-sequential traversal. Across 10,000 evaluations spanning six state-of-the-art open-source LLMs, accuracy dropped by up to 72% under jumping conditions (compared to baseline), revealing a strong dependence on positional continuity. Error analysis shows that approximately 50% of failures stem from instruction-order violations and semantic drift, indicating that current architectures internalize instruction following as a sequential pattern rather than a reasoning skill. These results reveal structural sensitivity as a fundamental limitation in current architectures, with direct implications for applications requiring non-sequential control flow such as workflow automation and multi-agent systems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2026.
Builds on
13 of 19 references.
References · 13
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,998
- 2021Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalizationcited by 1,470
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,386
- 2024FlashAttention-3: Fast and Accurate Attention with Asynchrony and Low-precisioncited by 519
- 2024The Impact of Reasoning Step Length on Large Language Modelscited by 153
- 2025How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?cited by 20
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Where does an LLM begin computing an instruction?
- 2023FollowEval: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Assessing the Instruction-Following Capability of Large Language Models
- 2024Benchmarking Large Language Models on Controllable Generation under Diversified Instructions
- 2025The Atomic Instruction Gap: Instruction-Tuned LLMs Struggle with Simple, Self-Contained Directives
- 2026The System Prompt Illusion: How Instruction Preambles Modify Computation in Language Models
- 2026Do as I Say, Not as I Do: Instruction-Induction Conflict in LLMs
- 2026Hierarchical Alignment: Enforcing Hierarchical Instruction-Following in LLMs through Logical Consistency
- 2026Enhancing LLM Instruction Following: An Evaluation-Driven Multi-Agentic Workflow for Prompt Instructions Optimization