mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CritiQ: Mining Data Quality Criteria from Human Preferences

arXiv 2502.19279 ↗First posted 26 Feb 2025cs.CLcited by 6

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Language model heavily depends on high-quality data for optimal performance. Existing approaches rely on manually designed heuristics, the perplexity of existing models, training classifiers, or careful prompt engineering, which require significant expert experience and human annotation effort while introduce biases. We introduce CritiQ, a novel data selection method that automatically mines criteria from human preferences for data quality with only ~30 human-annotated pairs and performs efficient data selection. The main component, CritiQ Flow, employs a manager agent to evolve quality criteria and worker agents to make pairwise judgments. We build a knowledge base that extracts quality criteria from previous work to boost CritiQ Flow. Compared to perplexity- and classifier- based methods, verbal criteria are more interpretable and possess reusable value. After deriving the criteria, we train the CritiQ Scorer to give quality scores and perform efficient data selection. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in the code, math, and logic domains, achieving high accuracy on human-annotated test sets. To validate the quality of the selected data, we continually train Llama 3.1 models and observe improved performance on downstream tasks compared to uniform sampling. Ablation studies validate the benefits of the knowledge base and the reflection process. We analyze how criteria evolve and the effectiveness of majority voting.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 31 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2025.

Builds on

31 of 51 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models6 Oct

Other references · 30

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  4. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  5. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  6. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
  7. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  8. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
  9. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  10. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
  11. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  12. 2023Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflectioncited by 1,839
18 more
  1. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
  2. 2021Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gophercited by 1,202
  3. 2023Large Language Modelscited by 780
  4. 2023AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Modelscited by 716
  5. 2019CCNet: Extracting High Quality Monolingual Datasets from Web Crawl Datacited by 548
  6. 2024StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generationcited by 502
  7. 2024InternLM2 Technical Reportcited by 397
  8. 2022Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluatorscited by 380
  9. 2023Data Selection for Language Models via Importance Resamplingcited by 329
  10. 2023Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferencescited by 247
  11. 2019Stochastic Beams and Where to Find Them: The Gumbel-Top-k Trick for Sampling Sequences Without Replacementcited by 211
  12. 2024QuRating: Selecting High-Quality Data for Training Language Modelscited by 157
  13. 2023OpenWebMath: An Open Dataset of High-Quality Mathematical Web Textcited by 155
  14. 2024How to Train Data-Efficient LLMscited by 93
  15. 2023MathPile: A Billion-Token-Scale Pretraining Corpus for Mathcited by 67
  16. 2024Code Needs Comments: Enhancing Code LLMs with Comment Augmentationcited by 16
  17. 2024Dynamic Rewarding with Prompt Optimization Enables Tuning-free Self-Alignment of Language Modelscited by 13
  18. 2024Arctic-SnowCoder: Demystifying High-Quality Data in Code Pretrainingcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026PPL-Factory: Task-Aware and Budget-Aware Data Selection from Language Modeling to Reasoning
  2. 2025Influence Functions for Efficient Data Selection in Reasoning
  3. 2025How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators
  4. 2026An Agentic Retrieval Framework for Autonomous Context-Aware Data Quality Assessment
  5. 2026AutoData: Agentic Search for Pre-training Data Selection
  6. 2025TACOS: Open Tagging and Comparative Scoring for Instruction Fine-Tuning Data Selection
  7. 2026CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging
  8. 2024DACO: Towards Application-Driven and Comprehensive Data Analysis via Code Generation