@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://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl-workshops/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."
}