Benchmark Almanac

CriticEval

GPT-4 Turbo Nov 2023 7.86 leads since February 2024
Not in model cards

Models critique responses across four dimensions in nine task scenarios, giving both scalar scores and written critiques. GPT-4 grades written critiques against a large set of annotated reference critiques.

Accepted to NeurIPS 2024. It keeps separate objective and subjective boards.

Released
February 2024
Kind
Overall chat quality
Level
University
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-4 Turbo Nov 2023 #175 on the capability index
Last model added
January 2024
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Critique ability, i.e., the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and rectify flaws in responses, is crucial for their applications in self-improvement and scalable oversight. While numerous studies have been proposed to evaluate critique ability of LLMs, their comprehensiveness and reliability are still limited. To overcome this problem, we introduce CriticEval, a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate critique ability of LLMs. Specifically, to ensure the comprehensiveness, CriticEval evaluates critique ability from four dimensions across nine diverse task scenarios. It evaluates both scalar-valued and textual critiques, targeting responses of varying quality. To ensure the reliability, a large number of critiques are annotated to serve as references, enabling GPT-4 to evaluate textual critiques reliably. Extensive evaluations of open-source and closed-source LLMs first validate the reliability of evaluation in CriticEval. Then, experimental results demonstrate the promising potential of open-source LLMs, the effectiveness of critique datasets and several intriguing relationships between the critique ability and some critical factors, including task types, response qualities and critique dimensions.

Abstract of CriticEval: Evaluating Large Language Model as Critic (arXiv:2402.13764, CC0)
33
Entries on its own leaderboard, 12 models we track

GPT-4 Turbo leads with 7.86 among models released by January 2024

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in January 2024, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-4 Turbo Nov 2023 7.86
  2. 2 GLM4-no-tool 7.46
  3. 3 Qwen-Max 7.14
  4. 4 ErnieBot Pro 6.72
  5. 5 Claude-instant-1 6.45
  6. 6 InternLM2-20B-Chat 6.20
  7. 7 Baichuan2 Turbo 6.03
  8. 8 Qwen-72B-Chat 6.01
  9. 9 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 5.89
  10. 10 DeepSeek LLM 67B 5.84
  11. 11 Mixtral 8x7B 5.75
  12. 12 InternLM2-7B-Chat 5.66
  13. 13 Gemini 1.0 Pro 5.57
  14. 14 Mistral-7B-ins-v0.2 5.39
  15. 15 Qwen-14B 5.35
  16. 16 MiniMax-abab5 5.26
  17. 17 Llama 2-70B 5.00
  18. 18 Llama 2-13B 4.92
  19. 19 Vicuna-33B-v1.3 4.90
  20. 20 Qwen-7B-Chat 4.63
  21. 21 PaLM 4.59
  22. 22 Baichuan2-13B 4.51
  23. 23 Auto-J-13B 4.42
  24. 24 Yi-34B-Chat 4.39
  25. 25 DeepSeek-7B 4.37
  26. 26 WizardLM-13B-v1.2 4.36
  27. 27 Llama 2-7B 4.30
  28. 28 WizardLM-70B-v1.0 4.16
  29. 29 Vicuna-7B-v1.3 4.14
  30. 30 UltraCM-13B 4.12
  31. 31 Baichuan2-7B-Chat 4.11
  32. 32 ChatGLM3-6B 3.95
  33. 33 Yi-6B-Chat 3.18

Source: Official CriticEval leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-4 Turbo Nov 2023 7.86 Nov 2023 Official leaderboard
2 GLM4-no-tool 7.46 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen-Max 7.14 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
4 ErnieBot Pro 6.72 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
5 Claude-instant-1 6.45 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
6 InternLM2-20B-Chat 6.20 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
7 Baichuan2 Turbo 6.03 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen-72B-Chat 6.01 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 5.89 Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek LLM 67B 5.84 Nov 2023 Official leaderboard
11 Mixtral 8x7B 5.75 Dec 2023 Official leaderboard
12 InternLM2-7B-Chat 5.66 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 1.0 Pro 5.57 Dec 2023 Official leaderboard
14 Mistral-7B-ins-v0.2 5.39 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen-14B 5.35 Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
16 MiniMax-abab5 5.26 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
17 Llama 2-70B 5.00 Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
18 Llama 2-13B 4.92 Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
19 Vicuna-33B-v1.3 4.90 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen-7B-Chat 4.63 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
21 PaLM 4.59 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
22 Baichuan2-13B 4.51 Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
23 Auto-J-13B 4.42 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
24 Yi-34B-Chat 4.39 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
25 DeepSeek-7B 4.37 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
26 WizardLM-13B-v1.2 4.36 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
27 Llama 2-7B 4.30 Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
28 WizardLM-70B-v1.0 4.16 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
29 Vicuna-7B-v1.3 4.14 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
30 UltraCM-13B 4.12 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
31 Baichuan2-7B-Chat 4.11 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
32 ChatGLM3-6B 3.95 Oct 2023 Official leaderboard
33 Yi-6B-Chat 3.18 Nov 2023 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Feb 2024

Source: Official CriticEval leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 2024 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 2024

Source: Official CriticEval leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Instructions and chat

All 81 in Instructions and chat
  • IFEval In use Models answer about 500 prompts containing verifiable instructions such as word limits or required keywords. Code checks each instruction for strict and loose accuracy. Gemma 4 31B IT 98.9%
  • IFBench In use 58 new out-of-domain verifiable output constraints. Scored by programmatic constraint checks (strict or loose). Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B 82.9%
  • MultiChallenge In use Multi-turn conversations testing instruction retention, inference memory, versioned editing and self-coherence. Graded by LLM judge with rubrics. GPT-6.1 Sol 82%
  • Multi-IF In use Models follow verifiable instructions over three-turn conversations in eight languages, extending IFEval. Scored by instruction accuracy at each turn. LFM3-1.7B 89.1%
  • AdvancedIF In use Models respond to over 1,600 prompts with complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. A judge model checks each response against expert-written rubrics. MAI-Thinking-1 85%
  • IFStruct In use Models generate JSON or YAML that must follow a requested schema and phrasing constraints, without constrained decoding. A response passes only if every structural constraint holds. Gemma 4 31B IT 95.9%