Lei Hou

Yunjia Qi, Hao Peng, Xiaozhi Wang et al. · tsinghua

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities in real-world agentic applications. Growing research efforts aim to develop LLM-based agents to address practical demands, introducing a new challenge: agentic scenarios often involve lengthy instructions with complex constraints, such as extended system prompts and detailed tool specifications. While adherence to such instructions is crucial for agentic applications, whether LLMs can reliably follow them remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce AgentIF, the first benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM instruction following ability in agentic scenarios. AgentIF features three key characteristics: (1) Realistic, constructed from 50 real-world agentic applications. (2) Long, averaging 1,723 words with a maximum of 15,630 words. (3) Complex, averaging 11.9 constraints per instruction, covering diverse constraint types, such as tool specifications and condition constraints. To construct AgentIF, we collect 707 human-annotated instructions across 50 agentic tasks from industrial application agents and open-source agentic systems. For each instruction, we annotate the associated constraints and corresponding evaluation metrics, including code-based evaluation, LLM-based evaluation, and hybrid code-LLM evaluation. We use AgentIF to systematically evaluate existing advanced LLMs. We observe that current models generally perform poorly, especially in handling complex constraint structures and tool specifications. We further conduct error analysis and analytical experiments on instruction length and meta constraints, providing some findings about the failure modes of existing LLMs. We have released the code and data to facilitate future research.

Yantao Liu, Zijun Yao, Xin Lv et al.

Providing knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a promising solution to update the static knowledge inherent in their parameters. However, knowledge in the document may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge in the LLMs' parameters. This leads to the necessity of examining the capability of LLMs to assimilate supplemental external knowledge that conflicts with their memory. While previous studies have explained to what extent LLMs extract conflicting knowledge from the provided text, they neglect the necessity to reason with conflicting knowledge. Furthermore, there lack a detailed analysis on strategies to enable LLMs to resolve conflicting knowledge via prompting, decoding strategy, and supervised fine-tuning. To address these limitations, we construct a new dataset, dubbed KNOT, for knowledge conflict resolution examination in the form of question answering. KNOT facilitates in-depth analysis by dividing reasoning with conflicting knowledge into three levels: (1) Direct Extraction, which directly extracts conflicting knowledge to answer questions. (2) Explicit Reasoning, which reasons with conflicting knowledge when the reasoning path is explicitly provided in the question. (3) Implicit Reasoning, where reasoning with conflicting knowledge requires LLMs to infer the reasoning path independently to answer questions. We also conduct extensive experiments on KNOT to establish empirical guidelines for LLMs to utilize conflicting knowledge in complex circumstances. Dataset and associated codes can be accessed at https://github.com/THU-KEG/KNOT .