Metric Calculating Benchmark: Code-Verifiable Complicate Instruction Following Benchmark for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07892v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 07:43:15 GMT
• Title: Metric Calculating Benchmark: Code-Verifiable Complicate Instruction Following Benchmark for Large Language Models
• Authors: Hyeonseok Moon, Seongtae Hong, Jaehyung Seo, Heuiseok Lim,
• Abstract summary: We introduce MCBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether LLMs can execute string-matching NLP metrics by strictly following step-by-step instructions.<n>Unlike prior benchmarks that depend on subjective judgments or general reasoning, MCBench offers an objective, deterministic and codeverifiable evaluation.
• Score: 29.093730687124047
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent frontier-level LLMs have saturated many previously difficult benchmarks, leaving little room for further differentiation. This progress highlights the need for challenging benchmarks that provide objective verification. In this paper, we introduce MCBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether LLMs can execute string-matching NLP metrics by strictly following step-by-step instructions. Unlike prior benchmarks that depend on subjective judgments or general reasoning, MCBench offers an objective, deterministic and codeverifiable evaluation. This setup allows us to systematically test whether LLMs can maintain accurate step-by-step execution, including instruction adherence, numerical computation, and long-range consistency in handling intermediate results. To ensure objective evaluation of these abilities, we provide a parallel reference code that can evaluate the accuracy of LLM output. We provide three evaluative metrics and three benchmark variants designed to measure the detailed instruction understanding capability of LLMs. Our analyses show that MCBench serves as an effective and objective tool for evaluating the capabilities of cutting-edge LLMs.

Related papers

• PACIFIC: a framework for generating benchmarks to check Precise Automatically Checked Instruction Following In Code [1.1164117387254457]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based code assistants have emerged as a powerful application of generative AI.<n>Key requirement for these systems is their ability to accurately follow user instructions.<n>We present PACIFIC, a novel framework designed to automatically generate benchmarks that rigorously assess sequential instruction-following and code dry-running capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T14:49:56Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• Meeseeks: A Feedback-Driven, Iterative Self-Correction Benchmark evaluating LLMs' Instruction Following Capability [21.96694731466089]
  We introduce Meeseeks, a fully automated instruction-following benchmark equipped with an integrated feedback mechanism.<n>Meeseeks identifies erroneous components in model responses and provides corresponding feedback accurately, thereby iteratively guiding the model toward self-correction.<n>We conducted comprehensive analysis from both macro and instance levels, uncovering numerous common issues prevalent in current state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T13:28:19Z)
• Computational Reasoning of Large Language Models [51.629694188014064]
  We introduce textbfTuring Machine Bench, a benchmark to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute reasoning processes.<n> TMBench incorporates four key features: self-contained and knowledge-agnostic reasoning, a minimalistic multi-step structure, controllable difficulty, and a theoretical foundation based on Turing machine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T13:52:47Z)
• Evaluation of Instruction-Following Ability for Large Language Models on Story-Ending Generation [2.4889060833127665]
  In this paper, we focus on evaluating the instruction-following ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of story-ending generation. We propose an automatic evaluation pipeline that utilizes a machine reading comprehension (MRC) model to determine whether the generated story-ending reflects instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T06:53:36Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation [28.307860675006545]
  We comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-31T22:21:36Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task [54.48899723591296]
  The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. We benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T16:32:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.