@inproceedings{lee-etal-2026-mcjudgebench,
title = "{MCJ}udge{B}ench: A Benchmark for Constraint-Level Judge Evaluation in Multi-Constraint Instruction Following",
author = "Lee, Jaeyun and
Koh, Junyoung and
Tok, Zeynel and
Batra, Hunar and
Clark, Ronald",
editor = "Mille, Simon and
Gehrmann, Sebastian and
Schmidtov{\'a}, Patr{\'i}cia and
Du{\v{s}}ek, Ond{\v{r}}ej and
Fadaee, Marzieh and
Lo, Kyle and
Santus, Enrico and
Stanovsky, Gabriel",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics ({GEM})",
month = jul,
year = "2026",
address = "San Diego, California, USA",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.gem-main.23/",
pages = "205--221",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-423-1",
abstract = "Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in {yes, partial, no}, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="lee-etal-2026-mcjudgebench">
<titleInfo>
<title>MCJudgeBench: A Benchmark for Constraint-Level Judge Evaluation in Multi-Constraint Instruction Following</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jaeyun</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lee</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Junyoung</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Koh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Zeynel</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Tok</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Hunar</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Batra</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ronald</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Clark</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics (GEM)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Simon</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mille</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sebastian</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gehrmann</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Patrícia</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Schmidtová</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ondřej</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dušek</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Marzieh</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Fadaee</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kyle</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lo</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Enrico</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Santus</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Gabriel</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Stanovsky</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">San Diego, California, USA</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-423-1</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in yes, partial, no, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">lee-etal-2026-mcjudgebench</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.gem-main.23/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>205</start>
<end>221</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T MCJudgeBench: A Benchmark for Constraint-Level Judge Evaluation in Multi-Constraint Instruction Following
%A Lee, Jaeyun
%A Koh, Junyoung
%A Tok, Zeynel
%A Batra, Hunar
%A Clark, Ronald
%Y Mille, Simon
%Y Gehrmann, Sebastian
%Y Schmidtová, Patrícia
%Y Dušek, Ondřej
%Y Fadaee, Marzieh
%Y Lo, Kyle
%Y Santus, Enrico
%Y Stanovsky, Gabriel
%S Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics (GEM)
%D 2026
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C San Diego, California, USA
%@ 979-8-89176-423-1
%F lee-etal-2026-mcjudgebench
%X Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in yes, partial, no, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.gem-main.23/
%P 205-221
Markdown (Informal)
[MCJudgeBench: A Benchmark for Constraint-Level Judge Evaluation in Multi-Constraint Instruction Following](https://aclanthology.org/2026.gem-main.23/) (Lee et al., GEM 2026)
ACL