Existing automatic scientific question generation studies mainly focus on single-document factoid QA, overlooking the inter-document reasoning crucial for scientific understanding. We present AIM-SciQA, an automated framework for generating multi-document, multi-hop scientific QA datasets. AIM-SciQA extracts single-hop QAs using large language models (LLMs) with machine reading comprehension and constructs cross-document relations based on embedding-based semantic alignment while selectively leveraging citation information. Applied to 8,211 PubMed Central papers, it produced 411,409 single-hop and 13,672 multi-hop QAs, forming the IM-SciQA dataset. Human and automatic validation confirmed high factual consistency, and experimental results demonstrate that IM-SciQA effectively differentiates reasoning capabilities across retrieval and QA stages, providing a realistic and interpretable benchmark for retrieval-augmented scientific reasoning. We further extend this framework to construct CIM-SciQA, a citation-guided variant achieving comparable performance to the Oracle setting, reinforcing the dataset’s validity and generality.

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.

Recent work on music question answering (Music-QA) has primarily focused on single-track understanding, where models answer questions about an individual audio clip using its tags, captions, or metadata. However, listeners often describe music in comparative terms, and existing benchmarks do not systematically evaluate reasoning across multiple tracks. Building on the Jamendo-QA dataset, we introduce Jamendo-MT-QA, a dataset and benchmark for multi-track comparative question answering. From Creative Commons-licensed tracks on Jamendo, we construct 36,519 comparative QA items over 12,173 track pairs, with each pair yielding three question types: yes/no, short-answer, and sentence-level questions. We describe an LLM-assisted pipeline for generating and filtering comparative questions, and benchmark representative audio-language models using both automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation.