# CritiQ: Mining Data Quality Criteria from Human Preferences

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19279 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19279/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 31)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11446/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05782/) (2023)
- [AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06364/) (2023)
- [CCNet: Extracting High Quality Monolingual Datasets from Web Crawl Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00359/) (2019)
- [StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19173/) (2024)
- [InternLM2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17297/) (2024)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [Data Selection for Language Models via Importance Resampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.03169/) (2023)
- [Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08582/) (2023)
- [Stochastic Beams and Where to Find Them: The Gumbel-Top-k Trick for Sampling Sequences Without Replacement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.06059/) (2019)
- [QuRating: Selecting High-Quality Data for Training Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09739/) (2024)
- [OpenWebMath: An Open Dataset of High-Quality Mathematical Web Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06786/) (2023)
- [How to Train Data-Efficient LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09668/) (2024)
- [MathPile: A Billion-Token-Scale Pretraining Corpus for Math](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17120/) (2023)
- [Code Needs Comments: Enhancing Code LLMs with Comment Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13013/) (2024)
- [Dynamic Rewarding with Prompt Optimization Enables Tuning-free Self-Alignment of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.08733/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Towards Reasoning Era: A Survey of Long Chain-of-Thought for Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09567/) (2025)
- [Agentic Harness Engineering: Observability-Driven Automatic Evolution of Coding-Agent Harnesses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.25850/) (2026)
- [AgentGym-RL: Training LLM Agents for Long-Horizon Decision Making through Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.08755/) (2025)
- [AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16004/) (2026)
- [AgentGym2: Benchmarking Large Language Model Agents in De-Idealized Real-World Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05174/) (2026)
- [Code-driven Number Sequence Calculation: Enhancing the inductive Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14620/) (2025)

## 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.