Existing large language models (LLMs) face challenges of following complex instructions, especially when multiple constraints are present and organized in paralleling, chaining, and branching structures. One intuitive solution, namely chain-of-thought (CoT), is expected to universally improve capabilities of LLMs. However, we find that the vanilla CoT exerts a negative impact on performance due to its superficial reasoning pattern of simply paraphrasing the instructions. It fails to peel back the compositions of constraints for identifying their relationship across hierarchies of types and dimensions. To this end, we propose RAIF, a systematic method to boost LLMs in dealing with complex instructions via incentivizing reasoning for test-time compute scaling.

Instruction following is one of the fundamental capabilities of large language models (LLMs). As the ability of LLMs is constantly improving, they have been increasingly applied to deal with complex human instructions in real-world scenarios. Therefore, how to evaluate the ability of complex instruction-following of LLMs has become a critical research problem. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on modeling different types of constraints in human instructions while neglecting the composition of different constraints, which is an indispensable constituent in complex instructions. To this end, we propose ComplexBench, a benchmark for comprehensively evaluating the ability of LLMs to follow complex instructions composed of multiple constraints. We propose a hierarchical taxonomy for complex instructions, including 4 constraint types, 19 constraint dimensions, and 4 composition types, and manually collect a high-quality dataset accordingly. To make the evaluation reliable, we augment LLM-based evaluators with rules to effectively verify whether generated texts can satisfy each constraint and composition. Furthermore, we obtain the final evaluation score based on the dependency structure determined by different composition types. ComplexBench identifies significant deficiencies in existing LLMs when dealing with complex instructions with multiple constraints composition.

LLMs has become a critical research problem.

In this way, vision planning provides avisualization of language planning, offering more intuitiveguidance to avoid potential confusion.

Foundation models (FMs) are increasingly used to bridge language and action in embodied agents, yet the operational characteristics of different FM integration strategies remain under-explored -- particularly for complex instruction following and versatile action generation in changing environments. This paper examines three paradigms for building robotic systems: end-to-end vision-language-action (VLA) models that implicitly integrate perception and planning, and modular pipelines incorporating either vision-language models (VLMs) or multimodal large language models (LLMs). We evaluate these paradigms through two focused case studies: a complex instruction grounding task assessing fine-grained instruction understanding and cross-modal disambiguation, and an object manipulation task targeting skill transfer via VLA finetuning. Our experiments in zero-shot and few-shot settings reveal trade-offs in generalization and data efficiency. By exploring performance limits, we distill design implications for developing language-driven physical agents and outline emerging challenges and opportunities for FM-powered robotics in real-world conditions.

LLMs has become a critical research problem.

Recent frontier-level LLMs have saturated many previously difficult benchmarks, leaving little room for further differentiation. This progress highlights the need for challenging benchmarks that provide objective verification. In this paper, we introduce MCBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether LLMs can execute string-matching NLP metrics by strictly following step-by-step instructions. Unlike prior benchmarks that depend on subjective judgments or general reasoning, MCBench offers an objective, deterministic and codeverifiable evaluation. This setup allows us to systematically test whether LLMs can maintain accurate step-by-step execution, including instruction adherence, numerical computation, and long-range consistency in handling intermediate results. To ensure objective evaluation of these abilities, we provide a parallel reference code that can evaluate the accuracy of LLM output. We provide three evaluative metrics and three benchmark variants designed to measure the detailed instruction understanding capability of LLMs. Our analyses show that MCBench serves as an effective and objective tool for evaluating the capabilities of cutting-edge LLMs.