# Instruction-Tuned, but Not More Verifiable Instruction-Following: A Cross-Task Diagnosis for LoRA Adapters

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22379 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22379/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 17 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.00751/) (2019)
- [Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisited](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.00414/) (2019)
- [Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.05482/) (2022)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Editing Models with Task Arithmetic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.04089/) (2022)
- [TIES-Merging: Resolving Interference When Merging Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01708/) (2023)
- [An Overview of Multi-Task Learning in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.05098/) (2017)
- [AdapterFusion: Non-Destructive Task Composition for Transfer Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00247/) (2020)
- [Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10792/) (2023)
- [AdapterHub: A Framework for Adapting Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.07779/) (2020)
- [How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04751/) (2023)
- [Which Tasks Should Be Learned Together in Multi-task Learning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07553/) (2019)
- [LoraHub: Efficient Cross-Task Generalization via Dynamic LoRA Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13269/) (2023)
- [Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02833/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Adapters are often selected and deployed based on nominal labels (e.g., instruction-tuned), which implicitly suggest what capability improves after adaptation. We test whether nominal training objectives reliably align with realized cross-task capability gains by evaluating the same LoRA adapter across tasks. Our strongest evidence is tied to strict, automatically verifiable instruction following as measured by IFEval: across multiple seeds, base models, and LoRA settings, nominal labels recurrently but not universally fail to predict improvements on this verifiable target, with clear configuration sensitivity including a near-zero or negative case. As an illustrative strongest-case example in a controlled instruction-versus-numeric setting, an instruction-tuned adapter substantially improves off-target NM-based numeric benchmark performance from 0.133 to 0.632 while not improving verifiable instruction following on IFEval (ILA: 0.313 to 0.271; PLA: 0.250 to 0.143; values rounded to three decimals). We refer to this nominal-versus-realized mismatch pattern as capability drift as a descriptive label. The mismatch is visible in the raw cross-task performance matrix; we use a drift score only as a compact summary in the same units as the underlying metrics, not as a new formal metric contribution. Evidence from broader instruction-following benchmarks is benchmark-dependent and mixed, reflecting heterogeneity in how instruction following is operationalized; we therefore do not treat cross-benchmark agreement as a premise. Overall, the practical takeaway is to perform routine cross-task evaluation before deployment and to avoid treating nominal labels as reliable capability proxies.