Papers › XIFBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Multilingual Instruction Following

XIFBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Multilingual Instruction Following

10 Mar 2025arXiv:2503.07539archive 2025-07-28

Zhenyu Li, Kehai Chen, Yunfei Long, Xuefeng Bai, Yaoyin Zhang, Xuchen Wei, Juntao Li, Min Zhang

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable instruction-following capabilities across various applications. However, their performance in multilingual settings remains poorly understood, as existing evaluations lack fine-grained constraint analysis. We introduce XIFBench, a comprehensive constraint-based benchmark for assessing multilingual instruction-following abilities of LLMs, featuring a novel taxonomy of five constraint categories and 465 parallel instructions across six languages spanning different resource levels. To ensure consistent cross-lingual evaluation, we develop a requirement-based protocol that leverages English requirements as semantic anchors. These requirements are then used to validate the translations across languages. Extensive experiments with various LLMs reveal notable variations in instruction-following performance across resource levels, identifying key influencing factors such as constraint categories, instruction complexity, and cultural specificity.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

12 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 12 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from zhenyuli801/XIFBench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections