# RIFT: Reordered Instruction Following Testbed To Evaluate Instruction Following in Singular Multistep Prompt Structures

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18924 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18924/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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 (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08207/) (2021)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [FlashAttention-3: Fast and Accurate Attention with Asynchrony and Low-precision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08608/) (2024)
- [The Impact of Reasoning Step Length on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04925/) (2024)
- [How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11538/) (2025)
- [The SIFo Benchmark: Investigating the Sequential Instruction Following Ability of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19999/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [SpecPath: Testing Coding Agents Across Contract-Equivalent Specification Histories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.09799/) (2026)

## 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.