Large Language Models Can Follow Instructions, But Not Many at Once: Phase Transitions in Compositional Constraint Satisfaction
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
Title:Large Language Models Can Follow Instructions, But Not Many at Once: Phase Transitions in Compositional Constraint Satisfaction
Abstract:Large language models are increasingly deployed in settings that require simultaneous adherence to multiple explicit constraints - reasoning structure, safety boundaries, output schemas. Individual constraints are handled proficiently, but the compositional regime, where many must hold jointly, remains poorly characterized: how rapidly does performance degrade, what governs the degradation, and can the collapse be mitigated? We introduce Constraint Saturation Evaluation (CSE), a procedurally generated benchmark that systematically varies the number of simultaneous constraints (k), with every constraint scored by a deterministic, rule-based verifier and zero LLM-judge involvement: 15 models, 36 constraint types, 369,753 checks at k=1-12. Three findings emerge. First, per-constraint pass rate decays gradually and predictably, while the chance of satisfying all k constraints collapses - a model passing individual constraints at ~41% at k=8 succeeds on all eight just 5.7% of the time. Second, constraints do not degrade equally: structural constraints lose 2x more baseline capability per added constraint than lexical ones, ordered by a comprehension-maintenance gap that separates constraints requiring sustained tracking from binary decisions immune to composition. Third, failures are nearly independent, which is what makes the accumulation multiplicative; the residual coupling that does exist tracks shared output features rather than pairwise interference - a wrong sentence count fails every constraint that reads it. Reliable instruction following breaks down beyond 5-6 simultaneous constraints: probe-level success falls below 50% at 7 constraints for the strongest model, and at 3 or fewer for 12 of 15.
| Comments: | 35 pages, 7 figures, 13 tables. Reviewed in the ARR May 2026 cycle |
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| ACM classes: | I.2.7; I.2.6 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.12426 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2608.12426v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.12426
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Mariya I. Vasileva [view email][v1] Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:57:06 UTC (1,556 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Geometric and Behavioral Stratification in Transformer Residual Streams
Aug 14
-
Perturbation-based Regional Interpretability through Subtraction Mapping (PRISM): naming-error dissociations in language models and post-stroke aphasia
Aug 14
-
I-SDPO: Instance-Level Adaptive Self-Distillation Policy Optimization
Aug 14
-
Comment on "Modeling rapid language learning by distilling Bayesian priors into artificial neural networks"
Aug 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.