Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
IF-RewardBench is introduced as a new meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of judge models in evaluating instruction-following capabilities of LLMs. The benchmark uses preference graphs to represent pairwise preferences among multiple responses for each instruction, enabling listwise evaluation of judge models. Experiments demonstrate that current judge models have significant deficiencies and that IF-RewardBench correlates more strongly with downstream task performance than existing benchmarks.
Current judge models for instruction-following are surprisingly unreliable, but a new benchmark exposes their flaws and offers a path to better alignment.
Instruction-following is a foundational capability of large language models (LLMs), with its improvement hinging on scalable and accurate feedback from judge models. However, the reliability of current judge models in instruction-following remains underexplored due to several deficiencies of existing meta-evaluation benchmarks, such as their insufficient data coverage and oversimplified pairwise evaluation paradigms that misalign with model optimization scenarios. To this end, we propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following that covers diverse instruction and constraint types. For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses based on instruction-following quality. This design enables a listwise evaluation paradigm that assesses the capabilities of judge models to rank multiple responses, which is essential in guiding model alignment. Extensive experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models and demonstrate that our benchmark achieves a stronger positive correlation with downstream task performance compared to existing benchmarks. Our codes and data are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/IF-RewardBench.