Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Step-by-Step Mastery: Enhancing Soft Constraint Following Ability of Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that soft constraint following in large language models can be improved by a three-part recipe: build preference data by adding one soft constraint at a time and having GPT-4o judge which of two outputs follows better…

desk verdict A solid, modest recipe paper for soft-constraint following; the main caveat is that both the training signal and the benchmark judges come from GPT-4, so the gains partly measure alignment with that judge. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04945 v4 pith:N7MDMRPO submitted 2025-01-09 cs.CL cs.AI

Qingyu Ren , Jie Zeng , Qianyu He , Jiaqing Liang , Yanghua Xiao , Weikang Zhou , Zeye Sun , Fei Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords softconstraintsinstructionfollowingDirectPreferenceOptimizationcurriculumlearningLLMalignmentdatasetconstructionconstraintbenchmarksprogressive
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper targets instructions with soft constraints—requirements about content, situation, or style that cannot be checked by code, such as "include the word diet" or "keep an encouraging tone." It claims that a pipeline which adds one such constraint at a time, uses GPT-4o as a judge to pick the better of two candidate outputs, and then trains with Direct Preference Optimization in a curriculum ordered by constraint count, substantially improves constraint following. The reported gains appear on FollowBench, CFBench, and IFEval across LLaMA-3, Mistral, and Qwen models, with the largest gains on the hardest, five-constraint level. A sympathetic reader would care because soft constraints are common in real instructions yet hard to verify automatically, and the recipe does not require human-labeled data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Judger: GPT-4o prompted to pairwise-rank two candidate outputs by which follows the updated instruction better. Because soft constraints cannot be checked with rules, this pairwise judgment is what converts raw model outputs into preference labels; DPO then exploits the winner and loser pairs, and the curriculum (training on one-constraint pairs before two-, three-, four-, and five-constraint pairs) sequences them by difficulty. The progressive construction step supplies the comparisons by regenerating an output each time a constraint is added.

What would settle it

Run the same 1,500-instruction pipeline with human pairwise labels or a different judge model as the reordering signal, retrain, and score on FollowBench and CFBench; if the reported gains vanish or reverse, the improvement was an artifact of GPT-4o's own preferences rather than a real gain in constraint following.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combination of progressive construction, Judger reordering, DPO, and curriculum learning enhances LLMs' ability to follow soft constraints while also helping with hard constraints. Progressive construction starts from 1,500 seed instructions and appends one constraint at a time up to five, generating outputs at each step. A GPT-4o "Judger" compares the new output with the previous winner for the updated instruction, producing winner and loser pairs; these pairs feed DPO with an added SFT term to stabilize training. The curriculum orders the pairs from one to five constraints. On FollowBench and CFBench, the trained models beat their base counterparts on soft-constraint subsets, and on IFEval they also improve at hard constraints; the paper attributes the largest gains to the hardest levels and to mixed constraint types.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that GPT-4o's pairwise judgments of which output follows the constraints better are reliable enough to serve as training labels and that the GPT-4-based benchmark scores measure genuine constraint following; the only direct human check is on 100 ranking instances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Applying the same automatic pipeline to a new domain or language should improve soft-constraint following there without human labels, because the data construction is fully automatic.
  • The largest gains at the hardest difficulty levels and on mixed constraint types imply the method is most valuable exactly where base models fail most.
  • Improvements on IFEval indicate that training on soft constraints can transfer to hard, rule-checkable constraints.
  • The public dataset and code allow other groups to reproduce or extend the recipe and compare against it directly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the final benchmark scores are produced by GPT-4-based evaluators and only 100 ranking instances were human-checked, part of the reported gain may reflect increasing agreement with GPT-4's notion of constraint following rather than with human judgment; a human evaluation of the final outputs would settle this.
  • The curriculum is ordered only by the number of constraints; ordering by constraint type, overlap, or judged difficulty could yield larger or more sample-efficient gains.
  • If judge quality is the main driver, the recipe's ceiling is tied to the judge model, so a stronger or multi-model judge panel might raise the ceiling further.
  • The same progressive "add one requirement, keep the better output" loop could be adapted to other unverifiable qualities such as safety, factual grounding, or style consistency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pipeline for constructing preference data for soft constraint following: seed instructions are progressively expanded by adding one constraint at a time, and a GPT-4o 'Judger' reorders the corresponding outputs to create positive/negative pairs. DPO is then applied with a curriculum learning schedule based on the number of constraints, with ShareGPT data mixed in to prevent forgetting. The method is evaluated on FollowBench, CFBench, IFEval, AlpacaEval2.0 and MT-Bench, and the authors report consistent improvements over base models across LLaMA-3, Mistral, and Qwen, with ablations isolating the Judger, progressive construction, and curriculum. The data and code are released.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper offers a practical, largely automated recipe for improving soft-constraint following that could be applied to a range of open models. Strengths include the release of datasets and code, the breadth of base models tested, and ablations that isolate components. However, the evaluation is undermined by a GPT-4-as-judge overlap between training and evaluation, and by the absence of error bars; the human validation is limited to ranking agreement on 100 instances and does not cover final benchmark scores.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.2 and §4.1] The preference data are constructed using GPT-4o as the 'Judger' to rank outputs (Section 3.1.2), and the main benchmarks FollowBench and CFBench rely on GPT-4 as the evaluator (Section 4.1). This overlap means the reported improvements may partly reflect better alignment with GPT-4 evaluator preferences rather than a genuine improvement in constraint following. The only human validation, Table 9, measures ranking agreement on 100 seed instances during dataset construction, not on the final model outputs; it therefore does not rule out evaluator-overfitting. I request a concrete test: sample 100-200 generations from BASE and DPO+Judger+CL on FollowBench/CFBench and have human annotators judge constraint compliance, or re-evaluate with a non-GPT-4 judge (e.g., an open-source LLM judge) to show that the gains persist.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 3-5] All main results are single runs without error bars or significance tests. For example, in Table 4 the L3 soft satisfaction rate for LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct rises from 69.5 to 73.3, but in Table 5 the CFBench Full Set improvement is only 0.478 to 0.501, and some cells (e.g., L5 soft rate, Table 4) show no improvement. Since DPO training is seed-sensitive, differences of 1-2 points could be within run-to-run noise. The paper's use of 'significantly enhances' (Section 4.2) is therefore unsupported. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds for the main experiments, or a paired significance test.
  3. [§3.2 and Table 7] The curriculum learning comparison is confounded. In Table 7, 'DPO+Judger' and 'DPO+Judger+CL' differ not only in the training order but also in data composition: the CL condition trains sequentially on Curriculum 1-3 then Curriculum 4-5, while the non-CL condition is not described (is it a single mixed dataset? what order?). In addition, the text states that each curriculum is mixed with '10k ShareGPT examples based on its data size' (Section 3.2), which may change the total number of optimization steps and the ratio of task data to general data. Figure 5 further shows that after the easy curriculum (Stage3), L4-L5 performance is below the base model, which is then attributed post hoc to a gap in difficulty. Without controlling for total data and steps, the 1.5-point gain attributed to curriculum learning (53.1 to 54.6 in Table 7) is not identifiable.
  4. [§3.2 and Table 1] The curriculum is built on the assumption that the number of constraints is a valid measure of task difficulty, and the staging into 'easy' (1-3) and 'difficult' (4-5) is arbitrary. No evidence is provided that constraint count alone predicts the model's success rate within the training distribution; for instance, Figure 5 suggests that after easy-curriculum training the model is worse on L4-L5 than the base model, which casts doubt on the monotonic difficulty assumption. Please provide a difficulty analysis (e.g., base model accuracy per constraint count on a held-out set) or justify the staging otherwise.
minor comments (7)
  1. [General] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'pipline' (Section 2), 'To addresss' (Section 3.1), 'difficlut' (Section 4.5.1), 'Subsequentially' (Section 4.5.3), and 'banchmarks' (Section 4.3). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Figure 3] The verb-frequency figure appears to contain unrendered escape sequences in the submitted text; please re-export the figure with legible text.
  3. [Table 2] The column header 'Cons.' is not defined in the caption or text; please spell out 'Constraint Types'.
  4. [Table 7] The distinction between the 'SFT' and 'SFT+Judger' rows in Table 7 is not fully explained in the main text; please state explicitly which outputs are used as targets for each row.
  5. [§4.5.2] The Position Consistency metric is defined for rankings, but the Judger evaluation uses pairwise comparisons; please clarify how positions are assigned in the 100-instance setting.
  6. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'This drop is attributed to the model's integration of various specialized training techniques during its initial training phase' is vague and does not cite evidence; please either substantiate or remove it.
  7. [Section 6] The Limitations section does not discuss the overlap between the GPT-4o-based data construction and GPT-4-based evaluation, which is the main threat to external validity; please add a discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is empirically evaluated on external benchmarks, and the GPT-4 judge overlap is a validity caveat, not a constructional identity.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: (1) construct preference data by progressively adding constraints and using GPT-4o as a Judger to rank outputs; (2) train with DPO under a curriculum; (3) evaluate on FollowBench, CFBench, and IFEval. The claimed result is an empirical improvement on these external benchmarks, not a quantity that is defined by the training data or by the Judger. The training preferences and the benchmark evaluations both involve GPT-4-family judges, which is a legitimate external-validity concern: gains could partly reflect alignment with GPT-4 evaluator preferences. But it is not circular in the required sense, because the benchmark instances and scoring protocols are external, the training data are not fitted to those benchmark scores, and IFEval provides a rule-based hard-constraint check that is independent of LLM judges. The paper also includes a small human validation of Judger rankings (Table 9), which partially grounds the preference signal. The self-citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., He et al. 2024) are motivational or comparative, not load-bearing derivations. No equation or claim reduces to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an empirical method. It depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (constraint count, curriculum split, DPO beta, mixing data) and on domain assumptions about GPT-4o's ability to generate constraints and rank responses, and about GPT-4-based benchmark evaluation. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Maximum constraints per instruction n = 5
    Ad hoc choice in Section 4.1 Settings; every seed instruction receives exactly five progressive constraint additions.
  • Curriculum staging split = easy: curricula 1-3; hard: curricula 4-5
    Ad hoc split used in Section 4.1 Settings; the paper does not test alternative splits.
  • DPO beta = 0.1
    Set in Appendix A.3 for all DPO runs; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • ShareGPT mixing amount = 10,000 examples per curriculum
    Used in Section 3.2 to avoid catastrophic forgetting; the quantity is chosen by hand.
  • Number of training epochs = 3
    All models are trained for 3 epochs (Appendix A.3); no epoch search is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Soft constraints can be categorized into content, situation, and style, and GPT-4o can generate valid constraint descriptions from these categories.
    Used throughout Section 3.1.1 and Appendix A.1; the entire dataset construction rests on this taxonomy and on generation quality.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o pairwise Judger rankings reflect true constraint-following quality.
    Introduced in Section 3.1.2; positive and negative preference pairs are built from these rankings. Only a 100-instruction human check in Section 4.5.2 supports this.
  • ad hoc to paper The number of constraints is a valid measure of task difficulty for curriculum ordering.
    Used in Section 3.2 to define curricula D1 through Dn; no independent calibration of difficulty beyond constraint count is provided.
  • domain assumption Benchmark evaluations with GPT-4 as judge (FollowBench, CFBench) measure soft-constraint following.
    Used in Section 4.1; necessary to interpret the main results. If LLM-as-judge is biased, the reported gains are biased.
  • standard math Standard DPO and SFT losses are appropriate for this preference data.
    The DPO formula in Section 3.2 is taken from Rafailov et al. (2024); no derivation issue is present.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Step-by-Step Mastery: Enhancing Soft Constraint Following Ability of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7MDMRPO

@misc{pith2026250104945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Step-by-Step Mastery: Enhancing Soft Constraint Following Ability of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7MDMRPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04945}
}
read the original abstract

It is crucial for large language models (LLMs) to follow instructions that involve multiple constraints. However, it is an unexplored area to enhance LLMs' ability to follow soft constraints. To bridge the gap, we initially design a pipeline to construct datasets with high-quality outputs automatically. Additionally, to fully utilize the positive and negative samples generated during the data construction process, we choose Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) as the training method. Furthermore, taking into account the difficulty of soft constraints indicated by the number of constraints, we design a curriculum learning training paradigm based on the constraint quantity. We experimentally evaluate the effectiveness of our methods in improving LLMs' soft constraint following ability and analyze the factors driving the improvements.The datasets and code are publicly available at https://github.com/Rainier-rq/FollowSoftConstraint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In real-world scenarios, user instructions con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of our study. We first design a pipeline to automatically construct datasets with high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The verb frequency in the instructions. where SFT loss is as follows: LSFT(πθ) = −E(Ik,Owk )∼Dk [log πθ(Owk |Ik)]. 3.3 Analysis and Comparison 3.3.1 Data Statistics We present a statistical analysis of different curric￾ula in Tab. 1. The results show that the number of constraints and instruction length in the curriculum continuously increase. Each curriculum contains a large scale of preference data. To show the di… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results across various constraint categories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the model across different training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Beyond the Trade-off: Self-Supervised Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning Models' Instruction Following

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-supervised RL framework with curriculum-decomposed constraints and a constraint-wise binary reward model improves instruction following in reasoning LLMs while preserving reasoning performance.

  2. VerIF: Verification Engineering for Reinforcement Learning in Instruction Following

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hybrid verifier that combines rule-based code checks and a reasoning-LLM judge enables reinforcement learning to improve LLM instruction following on several benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    This requires the model to effectively extract and inte- grate relevant information, ensuring that the essential components are included without omitting critical details

    Inclusion of Key Elements : The re- sponse must incorporate the key points specified in the instruction. This requires the model to effectively extract and inte- grate relevant information, ensuring that the essential components are included without omitting critical details

    work page

  2. [2]

    This task emphasizes the importance of maintaining focus and pre- cision within the scope defined by the instruction

    Topic Focus: The model must narrow the discussion to a specific subtopic, avoiding broad generalizations or irrele- vant tangents. This task emphasizes the importance of maintaining focus and pre- cision within the scope defined by the instruction

    work page

  3. [3]

    Are Large Language Models Actually Good at Text Style Transfer?

    Are large language models actually good at text style transfer? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05885. Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Gal- ley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277. Chau Minh Pham, Simeng Sun, and Mohit Iyyer

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19371

    Suri: Multi-constraint instruction follow- ing for long-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19371. Hadi Pouransari, Chun-Liang Li, Jen-Hao Rick Chang, Pavan Kumar Anasosalu Vasu, Cem Koc, Vaishaal Shankar, and Oncel Tuzel. 2024. Dataset decom- position: Faster llm training with variable sequence length curriculum. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.132...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 36

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 36. Kanghyun Ryu, Qiayuan Liao, Zhongyu Li, Koushil Sreenath, and Negar Mehr. 2024. Curricullm: Au- tomatic task curricula design for learning complex robot skills using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18382...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Nature, 623(7987):493–498

    Role play with large language models. Nature, 623(7987):493–498. Yunfan Shao, Linyang Li, Junqi Dai, and Xipeng Qiu

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10158

    Character-llm: A trainable agent for role- playing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10158. Atli Sigurgeirsson and Simon King. 2024. Control- lable speaking styles using a large language model. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 10851–10855. IEEE. Feifan Song, Bowen Yu, Minghao Li, Haiya...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [10]

    This task im- poses a higher demand on the model’s ability to generate well-organized and structured outputs, aligning with the re- quired presentation structure

    Strict Structure: The generated content must adhere to a predefined structure, such as being organized into coherent paragraphs, utilizing subheadings, or fol- lowing a specific format. This task im- poses a higher demand on the model’s ability to generate well-organized and structured outputs, aligning with the re- quired presentation structure. We provi...

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [11]

    Role-Playing: The response must be framed from the perspective of a spe- cific role or persona, ensuring alignment with the contextual expectations associ- ated with that role

  2. [12]

    Decision Support: The response should provide advice or recommendations that support decision-making within a partic- ular context

  3. [13]

    We provide the prompt template for construct- ing the Situation Soft Constraint in Tab

    Storytelling: The response should con- struct a narrative that is situated within a defined time, location, or background, maintaining coherence with the provided contextual elements. We provide the prompt template for construct- ing the Situation Soft Constraint in Tab. 13, T...

  4. [14]

    Tone Requirement: The generated con- tent must adopt a specific tone, such as formal, humorous, or otherwise defined

  5. [15]

    Language Complexity Control : The complexity of the language used must ad- here to specific standards, such as main- taining conciseness and clarity or em- ploying academic expressions

  6. [16]

    We provide the prompt template for construct- ing the Style Soft Constraint in Tab

    Emotional Expression: The response must convey a particular emotion, such as positivity or sadness, as dictated by the context. We provide the prompt template for construct- ing the Style Soft Constraint in Tab. 16. A.2 Details of Judger Reordering We utilize GPT-4o to reorder...

  7. [18]

    We apply cosine learning rate sched- uler

    For DPO, the learning rate is 5.0e-6 with a beta value of 0.1. We apply cosine learning rate sched- uler. For the benchmark evaluation, we adopt the online serving inference approach using vLLM. You are an Instruction Rewriting Expert. You need to rewrite #Given Instruction# b...

  8. [22]

    Add a Subtask or Another Related Question

  9. [23]

    Narrow Down the Topic: Instead of a general theme or topic, provide a more specific subset

  10. [24]

    Set a Higher Standard: Raise the bar for what’s considered acceptable or successful

  11. [25]

    Limit Resources: Restrict the number or type of resources someone can use

  12. [26]

    Introduce Specific Criteria: Mandate particular components or features that must be included

  13. [27]

    Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint

    Specifying Sequence: Dictate the order in which certain steps or actions should be taken. Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint. Table 11: The prompt template for constru...

  14. [30]

    /* The Given Instruction */ {Given Instruction} /* Rewriting Requirement */ Please add one proper content constraint to the #Given Instruction#

    You should try your best not to make the #Rewritten Instruction# become verbose, #Rewritten Instruction# can only add 10 to 20 words into #Given Instruction#. /* The Given Instruction */ {Given Instruction} /* Rewriting Requirement */ Please add one proper content constraint t...

  15. [31]

    Specify Language Complexity: Determine whether the text should use simple, intermediate, or advanced language

  16. [32]

    Control Output Length: Set limits on the text’s length, such as maximum word count or number of paragraphs

  17. [33]

    Restrict V ocabulary: Include or exclude specific words or phrases, or limit the range of vocabulary

  18. [34]

    Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint

    Mandate Structure: Require a specific format, such as headings, bullet points, or a particular narrative style. Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint. Table 12: The promp...

  19. [38]

    Define the Context: Specify a particular situation or environment that the suggestions should be relevant to

  20. [39]

    Introduce a Specific Problem: Focus on addressing a distinct problem or challenge that needs suggestions

  21. [40]

    Impose Urgency: Include a time constraint or urgency for when the suggestions should be applied

  22. [41]

    Limit Options: Restrict the scope of potential suggestions to a narrower set of choices

  23. [42]

    Add Dependencies: Require that suggestions consider certain conditions or prerequisites

  24. [43]

    Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint

    Prioritize Outcomes: Highlight specific outcomes or goals that the suggestions should aim to achieve. Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint. Table 13: The prompt template...

  25. [47]

    Specify a Role: Clearly define the role or persona to be taken on during the role-play

  26. [48]

    Define the Setting: Outline the environment or context in which the role-play should occur

  27. [49]

    Add Conflict or Challenge: Introduce a specific problem, conflict, or challenge that must be addressed within the role-play

  28. [50]

    Limit the Actions: Restrict the types or number of actions that can be taken during the role-play

  29. [51]

    Set Specific Goals: Define clear objectives that the role-player must achieve

  30. [52]

    Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint

    Introduce Time Constraints: Impose a time limit for the role-play to unfold or for certain actions to be completed. Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint. Table 14: The p...

  31. [53]

    Your rewriting cannot omit the non-text parts such as the table and code in #Given Instruction#

  32. [54]

    #Rewritten Instruction# must be reasonable and must be understood and responded to by humans

  33. [55]

    /* The Given Instruction */ {Given Instruction} /* Rewriting Requirement */ Please add one proper situation constraint to the #Given Instruction#

    You should try your best not to make the #Rewritten Instruction# become verbose, #Rewritten Instruction# can only add 10 to 20 words into #Given Instruction#. /* The Given Instruction */ {Given Instruction} /* Rewriting Requirement */ Please add one proper situation constraint...

  34. [56]

    Define Character Archetypes: Specify certain archetypes or roles characters should fulfill, such as a hero, mentor, or antagonist

  35. [57]

    Include Specific Plot Points: Mandate the inclusion of certain events or plot twists that must occur

  36. [58]

    Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added constraint

    Moral Dilemmas: Introduce a scenario where the characters must make a tough decision that involves competing ethical principles or risks. Please output in JSON format with the fields ’modified_instruction’ for the modified instruction and ’added_constraint’ for the added const...

  37. [59]

    Your rewriting cannot omit the non-text parts such as the table and code in #Given Instruction#. 2. #Rewritten Instruction# must be reasonable and must be understood and responded to by humans. 3. You should try your best not to make the #Rewritten Instruction# become verbose,...

  38. [60]

    Tone and Emotion: Specify the desired emotional tone for the response

  39. [61]

    Writing Style: Ask the AI to mimic a specific author’s writing style

  40. [62]

    Contradiction: Ask the AI to provide a response that contradicts the previous statement or take a stance opposite to its prior response

  41. [63]

    Ambiguity: Instruct the AI to create responses with intentional ambiguity or double meanings

  42. [64]

    [[A]]" if Output (a) is better,

    Humor or Satire: Request that the response be humorous or satirical, requiring the AI to generate jokes or witty remarks. Table 16: The prompt template for constructing the Style Soft Constraint (Jiang et al., 2023b). You are a helpful assistant who reviews a debate between tw...

    2023

  43. [2021]

    The lora target is set to all, with all models training for 3 epochs

    for efficient training. The lora target is set to all, with all models training for 3 epochs. The per device train batch size is set to 1, and gradient accumulation steps is set to 8. The warm-up ratio is set to 0.1. For SFT, LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct has a learning rate of 1.0e-4, ...

  44. [2023]

    See https://vicuna

    Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality. See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023), 2(3):6. Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Chengpeng Li, Tingyu Xia, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou

    2023

  45. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13542

    Self-play with execution feedback: Improving instruction-following capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13542. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, An...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.