Enhancing and Assessing Instruction-Following with Fine-Grained Instruction Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with nuanced user instructions is critical for their effective deployment in real-world applications. While prior methods focus on enhancing data diversity and complexity, they often overlook models' sensitivity to fine-grained variations in semantically similar instructions. To address this, we introduce DeMoRecon, a data augmentation framework that decomposes complex instructions into sub-components, modifies individual elements, and reconstructs them into instruction variants. This method preserves contextual integrity while injecting targeted variability essential for fine-grained instruction-following. Based on DeMoRecon, we construct the FGIV dataset, comprising over 1,700 seed instructions and thousands of nuanced variants designed for both supervised fine-tuning and preference-based alignment. Experimental results show that LLMs trained with FGIV achieve up to +10.2% improvement on our fine-grained FGIV-Eval benchmark and up to +8.8% on existing benchmarks such as FollowBench and InfoBench. These findings highlight the value of FGIV in advancing instruction sensitivity and robustness in LLMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".