# The Critique of Critique

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04518 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04518/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 46 of its 92 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Jan 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 46)

- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.11641/) (2019)
- [BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.10044/) (2019)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12244/) (2023)
- [RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.04683/) (2017)
- [Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.14599/) (2019)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11520/) (2021)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.14974/) (2020)
- [e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.01193/) (2018)
- [Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01693/) (2023)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Automated Fact-Checking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.11896/) (2021)
- ["Liar, Liar Pants on Fire": A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.00648/) (2017)
- [News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.12356/) (2022)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [RARR: Researching and Revising What Language Models Say, Using Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.08726/) (2022)
- [Cosmos QA: Machine Reading Comprehension with Contextual Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.00277/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09037/) (2025)
- [Training Language Models to Critique With Multi-agent Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15287/) (2024)
- [Outcome Accuracy is Not Enough: Aligning the Reasoning Process of Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.04649/) (2026)
- [LR^2Bench: Evaluating Long-chain Reflective Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models via Constraint Satisfaction Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17848/) (2025)
- [Investigating Advanced Reasoning of Large Language Models via Black-Box Environment Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19035/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Critique, as a natural language description for assessing the quality of model-generated content, has played a vital role in the training, evaluation, and refinement of LLMs. However, a systematic method to evaluate the quality of critique is lacking. In this paper, we pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which builds specific quantification criteria. To achieve a reliable evaluation outcome, we propose Atomic Information Units (AIUs), which describe the critique in a more fine-grained manner. MetaCritique aggregates each AIU's judgment for the overall score. Moreover, MetaCritique delivers a natural language rationale for the intricate reasoning within each judgment. Lastly, we construct a meta-evaluation dataset covering 4 tasks across 16 public datasets involving human-written and LLM-generated critiques. Experiments demonstrate that MetaCritique can achieve near-human performance. Our study can facilitate future research in LLM critiques based on our following observations and released resources: (1) superior critiques judged by MetaCritique can lead to better refinements, indicating that it can potentially enhance the alignment of existing LLMs; (2) the leaderboard of critique models reveals that open-source critique models commonly suffer from factuality issues; (3) relevant code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/MetaCritique to support deeper exploration; (4) an API at PyPI with the usage documentation in Appendix C allows users to assess the critique conveniently.