mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Mitigating Exploration Bias in RL for Multi-Instruction Following

arXiv 2608.23830 ↗First posted 24 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

RL has emerged as a powerful paradigm for enhancing the instruction following capabilities of LLMs. While existing training recipes achieve substantial gains, we find that they suffer from exploration bias towards easy instructions when the training data has multiple instructions in a prompt. This bias is caused by two main reasons: 1) the policy model's initial ability to satisfy hard instructions is too low to trigger successful exploration during RL training, so the optimization is biased towards easy instructions; and 2) canonical RL training recipes typically employ a cumulative reward (the number of instructions fulfilled), treating all instructions equally, which biases the policy model towards fulfilling easy instructions to obtain the same amount of reward. To address these issues, we first propose two metrics to measure the exploration bias in instruction following and then introduce a two-stage framework to alleviate it: 1) Behavioral Bootstrapping, a lightweight rejection sampling fine-tuning stage before RL to activate hard instructions; and 2) Scarcity-Aware Rewards, a new RL reward function that assigns rewards to instructions based on their empirical scarcity. Experiments show that the proposed metrics are highly correlated with model performance, and our methods unleash the potential of RL training: our best models outperform the baselines by a significant margin across three verifiable instruction following benchmarks. We release codes at https://github.com/mianzhang/MulIF.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 22 references.

References · 17

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  3. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  4. 2025Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?cited by 948
  5. 2023Understanding the Effects of RLHF on LLM Generalisation and Diversitycited by 386
  6. 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHFcited by 285
  7. 2025Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Followingcited by 178
  8. 2024ODIN: Disentangled Reward Mitigates Hacking in RLHFcited by 133
  9. 2023Confronting Reward Model Overoptimization with Constrained RLHFcited by 96
  10. 2024Multi-IF: Benchmarking LLMs on Multi-Turn and Multilingual Instructions Followingcited by 94
  11. 2025AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarioscited by 44
  12. 2025VerIF: Verification Engineering for Reinforcement Learning in Instruction Followingcited by 43
5 more
  1. 2024LIFBench: Evaluating the Instruction Following Performance and Stability of Large Language Models in Long-Context Scenarioscited by 31
  2. 2025Imbalanced Gradients in RL Post-Training of Multi-Task LLMscited by 19
  3. 2025How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?cited by 17
  4. 2025RECAST: Expanding the Boundaries of LLMs' Complex Instruction Following with Multi-Constraint Datacited by 11
  5. 2026IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluationcited by 8

Built on by

Not cited yet.