Learning Complementary Action Modeling from Automotive Maintenance Instructions

Instruction tuning is commonly assumed to endow language models with a domain-general ability to follow instructions, yet the underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. Does instruction-following rely on a universal mechanism or compositional skill deployment? We investigate this through diagnostic probing across nine diverse tasks in three instruction-tuned models. Our analysis provides converging evidence against a universal mechanism. First, general probes trained across all tasks show selective rather than uniform deficits relative to task-specific specialists, indicating that representational sharing is partial and structured rather than global. Second, cross-task transfer is weak and clustered by skill similarity. Third, causal ablation reveals sparse asymmetric dependencies rather than shared representations. Tasks also stratify by complexity across layers, with structural constraints emerging early and semantic tasks emerging late. Finally, temporal analysis shows that the constraint signal becomes decodable only once generation is under way, and remains so throughout the response. These findings indicate that instruction-following is better characterized as skillful coordination of diverse linguistic capabilities rather than deployment of a single abstract constraint-checking process.

Instructions trigger a production-centered mechanism in language models. Through a cognitively inspired lens that separates language processing and production, we reveal this mechanism as an asymmetry between the two stages by probing task-specific information layer-wise across five binary judgment tasks. Specifically, we measure how instruction tokens shape information both when sample tokens, the input under evaluation, are processed and when output tokens are produced. Across prompting variations, task-specific information in sample tokens remains largely stable and correlates only weakly with behavior, whereas the same information in output tokens varies substantially and correlates strongly with behavior. Attention-based interventions confirm this pattern causally: blocking instruction flow to all subsequent tokens reduces both behavior and information in output tokens, whereas blocking it only to sample tokens has minimal effect on either. The asymmetry generalizes across model families and tasks, and becomes sharper with model scale and instruction-tuning, both of which disproportionately affect the production stage. Our findings suggest that understanding model capabilities requires jointly assessing internals and behavior, while decomposing the internal perspective by token position to distinguish the processing of input tokens from the production of output tokens.

Procedural instruction following is a basic requirement for controllable language-model systems, especially when generated trajectories are inspected or repaired downstream. We introduce instruction duplication, a minimal black-box inference-time control that repeats only the procedural instruction, without retraining or decoding changes. Across seven instruction-tuned models, 300 medical multiple-choice questions, eight placement conditions, and 16,800 scheduled generations, moving from one to two copies raises the deterministic All-8 diagnostic--responses passing all eight observable tests--from 90.22% to 93.17% (+2.95 percentage points), eliminating 30.2% of the failures remaining after one copy. Pre-provisional TF-IDF recall rises from 73.44% to 74.81% (+1.38 points; Holm-adjusted p < .001), while final-answer accuracy remains exactly 60.21%. Premature commitment increases from 1.52% to 2.30% (p_Holm = .00536). A blinded challenge audit yields 10/30 directional confirmations, 20/30 perceptual ties, and no reversals; its prespecified 28/30 confirmation criterion is not met. Yet this distinction can matter operationally when a downstream system acts on the generated trajectory. In Answer Engineering (AE), where explicit trajectory state determines local repair, the published reason-first no-editing SSNHL endpoint was 25.1%; system-only AE was later reproduced at 84.2%, and the same trailing duplicate raised it to 97.1%. For conductive diagnostic branch preservation, the corresponding values are 58.9% published without editing, 78.6% with reproduced AE, and 73.8% with AE plus duplication--a within-AE decrease, but still 14.9 points above the no-editing baseline. Instruction duplication is therefore a low-complexity, placement-sensitive control whose practical value can emerge through the downstream system that consumes the exposed trajectory.