Cross-Relational Preference Learning for Better LLM Instruction Following
Authors: Runsheng Li, Kai Sun, Bin Shi, Bo Dong
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China · Shaanxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Big Data Knowledge Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China · School of Distance Education, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China
Large Language Models (LLMs) still exhibit limited capability in following complex instructions. While existing approaches often rely on preference learning to enhance this ability, they typically overlook the relationships between the permissible response spaces of different instructions, which restricts a model to align with subtle and diverse constraint variations. To address this, we propose Cross-Relational Preference Learning (CRPL), a novel framework for constructing preference data that explicitly models inter-instruction relationships through two key techniques: Cross-Relationship Perturbation and Cross-Region Pair Sampling. This enables the generation of more diverse preference data that captures a wide spectrum of constraint variations. Additionally, we introduce an atomic constraint-based verification mechanism to rigorously assess response satisfaction, ensuring high-quality preference pair construction. Extensive experiments across multiple preference learning methods (e.g., DPO, KTO), LLM backbones and four instruction-following benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves substantial improvements over prior baselines and exhibits strong generalization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Relationships between the permissible response spaces of an original instruction and its perturbed variant. Colors denote: red — original instruction’s response space; green — perturbed instruction’s response space; blue — intersection of the two spaces.
Figure 2: An overview of our Cross-Relational Preference Learning (CRPL) framework. (1) Cross-Relationship Perturbation: We decompose the original instruction into atomic constraints and generate perturbed instructions that exhibit specific response-space relationships (containment, partial overlap, or disjoint) with the original one. (2) Cross-Region Pair Sampling: Guarded by an atomic constraint-based verification mechanism, we sample positive and negative responses from distinct sub-regions of the combined response space to construct diverse, high-quality preference pairs.
Method
Training size
IFEval
IFBench
Perturbed-IF
FollowBench
Avg.
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Backbone: Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
-
71.2
78.7
26.5
29.0
42.5
65.0
50.9
58.2
52.8
Training strategy: DPO
Rejection Sampling
12k
75.7
81.0
24.8
26.3
51.0
66.6
46.2
55.6
53.4
From Complex to Simple
12k
74.1
81.6
27.6
29.9
45.5
64.8
51.6
58.5
54.2
Table 1: Performance comparison of our method against prior baselines across the four test sets. For each backbone and training strategy, the best and second-best accuracy scores are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively. OursIFEval and OursIFBench indicate models trained on the IFEval and IFBench training sets, respectively.
Model
Original
Containment-1
Containment-2
Partial Overlap
Disjoint
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
71.2
78.7
53.7
71.0
58.8
73.2
50.0
67.9
51.2
70.1
Rejection Sampling
75.7
81.0
57.5
75.0
60.0
75.6
55.0
72.8
62.5
73.7
From Complex to Simple
84.1
81.6
62.5
76.7
60.0
72.6
50.0
69.1
53.7
70.1
AutoIF
84.1
81.0
51.2
72.7
57.5
73.2
50.0
70.4
51.2
71.9
Ours
90.7
94.3
68.8
80.7
67.5
80.4
62.5
79.6
68.8
80.2
Table 2: Performance on original instructions and four types of perturbed instructions. Containment-1 and Containment-2 represent two subtypes of containment relationships, namely containing and contained.
Figure 3: Performance scaling with training data size for DPO (left) and KTO (right) across different methods.
Method
Accins
Acccon
Ours
90.7
94.3
w/o Containment-1
85.9
90.7
w/o Containment-2
84.7
88.8
w/o Partial Overlap
84.3
88.8
w/o Disjoint
82.9
87.2
Table 3: Ablated results on different relationship types.
Method
Accins
Acccon
Ours
81.3
85.6
w/o Pair1
77.1
82.5
w/o Pair2
77.3
83.1
w/o Pair3
78.5
83.5
w/o Pair4
79.2
84.2
Table 4: Ablated results on cross-region pair sampling.
Method
TP
FP
TF
NF
Accins
Acccon
ACV (ours)
66
0
27
15
85.4
89.2
ILV
47
0
27
34
84.0
88.7
LAJ
52
4
23
29
80.8
85.8
Table 5: Performance comparison for different verification methods.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
DPO
KTO
Learning Rate
1e-5
1e-5
Train Batch Size
32
32
Micro Train Batch Size
8
8
Max Sequence Length
5102
5102
Beta
0.1
0.1
Max Epochs
2
3
Appendix
Table 6: Ablated results on different relationship types.
Model
Data
IFEval
IFBench
Accins
Acccon
Accins
Acccon
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
-
85.0
89.1
33.2
35.4
OursIFEval
88.2
91.5
36.1
38.1
OursIFBench
88.2
92.1
41.6
44.3
Qwen3-8B
-
89.4
93.4
25.6
28.0
OursIFEval
89.1
93.1
29.6
31.3
Appendix
Table 7: Performance of Our Method across Different Backbone Models.
Figure 4: Prompt for instruction decomposition
Figure 5: Prompt for generating evaluation functions for atomic constraints.
Figure 6: Prompt for the first type of containment relationship perturbation. The valid response space of the original instruction contains that of the perturbed instruction.
Figure 7: Prompt for the second type of containment relationship perturbation. The valid response space of the perturbed instruction contains that of the original instruction.
Figure 8: Prompt for the partial overlap relationship perturbation.
Figure 9: Prompt for the disjoint relationship perturbation.
Preference learning optimizes models using response pairs, yet the informativeness of these pairs is fundamentally shaped by the instructions from which they are generated. We identify instruction quality as a hidden bottleneck in preference learning: low-quality or ambiguous instructions restrict the response-quality distribution, limiting strong chosen responses and weakening preference signals. Through Best- and Worst-of-N analyses, we show that instruction quality constrains both the ceiling and floor of sampled response quality. Motivated by this observation, we introduce an instruction-refinement pipeline that selects weak instructions using reward signals and revises them with rubric-guided LLM feedback, improving preference data without discarding examples. Across offline and online preference learning settings, experiments on multiple models and benchmarks show broad alignment improvements over original data and alternative data-improvement strategies. Further analyses indicate that instruction refinement raises achievable response quality and complements response-centric preference data curation. Overall, instruction quality emerges as a key factor governing how informative preference signals are formed for LLM alignment. Code is available at: https://github.com/01choco/instruction-refinement/
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.
Precise instruction-following is a fundamental ability of large language models (LLMs), requiring their outputs to strictly satisfy objective constraints in input instructions. In complex application scenarios, these constraints often possess diverse scopes that govern specific response segments rather than the entire output. However, existing optimization methods often neglect constraint scope during data construction and rely on binary per-constraint rewards, yielding limited data diversity and sparse supervision for complex constraints. To this end, we propose ScopeIF, a novel training framework for scope-aware precise instruction-following. We first introduce a unified schema that factorizes objective constraints into three decoupled dimensions: Scope, Target, and Range. Grounded in this schema, we construct ScopeInstruct, a large-scale instruction dataset with diverse scope-aware constraints, and combine tool-grounded verification with graded reward modeling to quantify the violation degree of each constraint, providing dense supervision for policy optimization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ScopeIF consistently outperforms existing methods, particularly on complex scope-aware constraints, while preserving general capabilities. Notably, it enables optimized Qwen3-4B and 8B models to rival or surpass strong frontier models such as Gemini-2.5-Pro and DeepSeek-V3.2, establishing an effective paradigm for advancing scope-aware instruction-following. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/ScopeIF.
Bosi Wen, Yilin Niu, Xiaoying Ning +3
The Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CoAI) Group, Tsinghua University · Zhipu AI