Dataset Viewer
original_prompt
stringlengths 1.68k
12.3k
| chosen
stringlengths 405
1.81k
| rejected
stringlengths 353
1.83k
| truth_result
int64 1
5
| original_critique
stringlengths 260
1.45k
| original_judgement
float64 1
5
| results
bool 1
class | chunk_idx
int64 2
2
| eval_data
stringlengths 758
11.4k
| prompt
stringlengths 3.1k
14k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Has the influence and power of sultans or monarchs decreased over time in modern-day monarchies?
```
Response:
```
Yes, the influence and power of sultans or monarchs have generally decreased over time in modern-day monarchies. In many monarchies, the role of monarchs has become largely ceremonial, with actual political power vested in elected officials or in government executives. However, there are exceptions where monarchs retain a great deal of real political power or where they serve as important symbols of unity and national identity.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | **Reasoning:** The response accurately addresses the user’s query regarding the decrease in influence and power of monarchs, providing a clear overview of the current state of modern-day monarchies. It identifies that many monarchs have transitioned to more ceremonial roles while noting exceptions where they still hold significant power, which reflects a nuanced understanding of the subject.
However, the response could improve by offering more specific examples of monarchies or citing particular countries to illustrate the changes in power dynamics. Additionally, mentioning specific factors that led to this decrease in influence would enhance the depth of the analysis. The current response is mostly aligned with the prompt with minor deviations, warranting the score of 4.
**Result:** 4 | **Reasoning:** The response partially addresses the user's question about the influence and power of sultans or monarchs in modern-day societies. While it does state that their power has generally decreased and acknowledges the ceremonial roles in some monarchies, it lacks specific examples or detailed explanations that would enhance understanding. Additionally, the mention of exceptions is vague and does not provide clarity on how these monarchies operate in contrast to others. To improve, the assistant should incorporate concrete examples of specific monarchies and their current roles to provide a more well-rounded answer. Furthermore, the response could better analyze the nuances of both ceremonial and powerful monarchies. This would help achieve a more comprehensive response that aligns closely with the user's inquiry.
**Result:** 2 | 4 | The response effectively addresses the task goal by providing a clear and concise answer to the question about the influence and power of sultans or monarchs in modern-day monarchies. It acknowledges the general trend of decreased influence and power, while also mentioning exceptions where monarchs retain significant power or serve as national symbols. The response is well-structured and easy to understand, making it suitable for the intended audience. However, it could benefit from more specific examples or evidence to support the claim, which would enhance its credibility and depth. | 4 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
Has the influence and power of sultans or monarchs decreased over time in modern-day monarchies?
```
Response:
```
Yes, the influence and power of sultans or monarchs have generally decreased over time in modern-day monarchies. In many monarchies, the role of monarchs has become largely ceremonial, with actual political power vested in elected officials or in government executives. However, there are exceptions where monarchs retain a great deal of real political power or where they serve as important symbols of unity and national identity.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
Has the influence and power of sultans or monarchs decreased over time in modern-day monarchies?
```
Response:
```
Yes, the influence and power of sultans or monarchs have generally decreased over time in modern-day monarchies. In many monarchies, the role of monarchs has become largely ceremonial, with actual political power vested in elected officials or in government executives. However, there are exceptions where monarchs retain a great deal of real political power or where they serve as important symbols of unity and national identity.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements.
```
Critique:
```
The response effectively addresses the task goal by providing a clear and concise answer to the question about the influence and power of sultans or monarchs in modern-day monarchies. It acknowledges the general trend of decreased influence and power, while also mentioning exceptions where monarchs retain significant power or serve as national symbols. The response is well-structured and easy to understand, making it suitable for the intended audience. However, it could benefit from more specific examples or evidence to support the claim, which would enhance its credibility and depth.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
4
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
T. S. Eliot spoke of his 'genius'; in 1935 W. B. Yeats wrote to him, 'I like you better than I like anybody else in the new generation.' This selection draws on six decades of writing, twenty volumes of verse, and illustrates the remarkable diversity of Barker's talent.
Skilled in both traditional and in freer forms, ranging in theme from the theology of guilt to the continuing possibilities of innocence, in mood from the frivolous to the sublime, the work of this most chameleon yet forceful of poets successfully evokes the outlines of his extraordinary personality, summoning before the reader what Barker himself once called 'The Face behind the Poem'.
Book Description: Edwin Muir Selected Poems contains a new selection from an Orkney poet who witnessed many of the major events of the twentieth century.
Can you provide more information about Edwin Muir and his poetry?
```
Response:
```
Edwin Muir (1887-1959) was a Scottish poet, novelist, translator, and literary critic who is best known for his interest in themes of spirituality, innocence and the natural world, as well as his deep affinity for his Orkney roots. Muir was born on a farm in Deerness, Orkney, and his early upbringing in this rural setting had a profound influence on his work.
Edwin Muir's poetry often reflects his Orkney heritage and engages with themes of childhood, memory, loss, and the passage of time. His verses have a timeless quality, often rooted in a deep sense of place and the natural world. In addition to his own poetry, Muir is well-known for his collaboration with his wife, Willa Muir, on translations of German works, most notably the works of Franz Kafka.
Muir's career as a writer spanned several decades, and he published numerous collections of poetry. Some of his most famous collections include "Chorus of the Newly Dead" (1926), "Three Poems" (1927), "First Poems" (1925), "Journeys and Places" (1937), "The Labyrinth" (1949), "One Foot in Eden" (1956), and "Collected Poems" (1952).
In his later years, Muir was also involved in literary criticism and became an influential figure in British literary circles. He held various positions, such as the Warden of Newbattle Abbey College and as the Charles Eliot Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University. Edwin Muir's work continues to be praised for its emotional depth, striking imagery, and insightful exploration of themes that resonate across time and place.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | **Reasoning:** The response provides a comprehensive and accurate overview of Edwin Muir, effectively addressing the user’s request for more information about the poet and his poetry. It highlights Muir's background, including his Orkney heritage, thematic interests, and significant works, thereby offering valuable context to understand his literary contributions. The explanation of Muir's influence and roles later in his career is particularly insightful, adding depth to the response. The information presented is well-organized, clear, and avoids unnecessary repetition, keeping the reader engaged.
To improve, the assistant could include specific examples of Muir's poems or highlight notable lines to further illustrate his style and significance, enhancing the informativeness of the response. However, the current level of detail already meets and exceeds the standards for an outstanding response. Overall, it is precise, informative, and fulfills the user's query effectively.
**Result:** 5 | **Reasoning:** The response provides a solid overview of Edwin Muir, touching on his background, themes, and notable works, which aligns well with the user's request for more information about him and his poetry. However, some areas could be improved for clarity and conciseness. The mention of Muir's translation work, while relevant, could be shortened so that the focus remains primarily on his poetry. Additional context about his influence on contemporary poetry or key literary movements would enhance the comprehensiveness of the response. The structure is clear but might benefit from more organization, such as separating biographical details from thematic analysis. Overall, the response is accurate and informative but could use refinement to maximize its effectiveness.
**Result:** 3 | 5 | The response provides a comprehensive overview of Edwin Muir's life, poetry, and literary career, accurately addressing the task's requirements. It offers a clear and relevant description of Muir's background, his work, and his notable contributions to literature. The information is well-organized, and the response effectively conveys the poet's themes, style, and impact. The inclusion of specific examples from his collections and notable positions held by Muir adds depth to the response. The writing is clear, concise, and free of repetition, making it easy to follow and understand. Overall, the response is highly informative, accurate, and meets the task's objectives. | 5 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
T. S. Eliot spoke of his 'genius'; in 1935 W. B. Yeats wrote to him, 'I like you better than I like anybody else in the new generation.' This selection draws on six decades of writing, twenty volumes of verse, and illustrates the remarkable diversity of Barker's talent.
Skilled in both traditional and in freer forms, ranging in theme from the theology of guilt to the continuing possibilities of innocence, in mood from the frivolous to the sublime, the work of this most chameleon yet forceful of poets successfully evokes the outlines of his extraordinary personality, summoning before the reader what Barker himself once called 'The Face behind the Poem'.
Book Description: Edwin Muir Selected Poems contains a new selection from an Orkney poet who witnessed many of the major events of the twentieth century.
Can you provide more information about Edwin Muir and his poetry?
```
Response:
```
Edwin Muir (1887-1959) was a Scottish poet, novelist, translator, and literary critic who is best known for his interest in themes of spirituality, innocence and the natural world, as well as his deep affinity for his Orkney roots. Muir was born on a farm in Deerness, Orkney, and his early upbringing in this rural setting had a profound influence on his work.
Edwin Muir's poetry often reflects his Orkney heritage and engages with themes of childhood, memory, loss, and the passage of time. His verses have a timeless quality, often rooted in a deep sense of place and the natural world. In addition to his own poetry, Muir is well-known for his collaboration with his wife, Willa Muir, on translations of German works, most notably the works of Franz Kafka.
Muir's career as a writer spanned several decades, and he published numerous collections of poetry. Some of his most famous collections include "Chorus of the Newly Dead" (1926), "Three Poems" (1927), "First Poems" (1925), "Journeys and Places" (1937), "The Labyrinth" (1949), "One Foot in Eden" (1956), and "Collected Poems" (1952).
In his later years, Muir was also involved in literary criticism and became an influential figure in British literary circles. He held various positions, such as the Warden of Newbattle Abbey College and as the Charles Eliot Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University. Edwin Muir's work continues to be praised for its emotional depth, striking imagery, and insightful exploration of themes that resonate across time and place.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
T. S. Eliot spoke of his 'genius'; in 1935 W. B. Yeats wrote to him, 'I like you better than I like anybody else in the new generation.' This selection draws on six decades of writing, twenty volumes of verse, and illustrates the remarkable diversity of Barker's talent.
Skilled in both traditional and in freer forms, ranging in theme from the theology of guilt to the continuing possibilities of innocence, in mood from the frivolous to the sublime, the work of this most chameleon yet forceful of poets successfully evokes the outlines of his extraordinary personality, summoning before the reader what Barker himself once called 'The Face behind the Poem'.
Book Description: Edwin Muir Selected Poems contains a new selection from an Orkney poet who witnessed many of the major events of the twentieth century.
Can you provide more information about Edwin Muir and his poetry?
```
Response:
```
Edwin Muir (1887-1959) was a Scottish poet, novelist, translator, and literary critic who is best known for his interest in themes of spirituality, innocence and the natural world, as well as his deep affinity for his Orkney roots. Muir was born on a farm in Deerness, Orkney, and his early upbringing in this rural setting had a profound influence on his work.
Edwin Muir's poetry often reflects his Orkney heritage and engages with themes of childhood, memory, loss, and the passage of time. His verses have a timeless quality, often rooted in a deep sense of place and the natural world. In addition to his own poetry, Muir is well-known for his collaboration with his wife, Willa Muir, on translations of German works, most notably the works of Franz Kafka.
Muir's career as a writer spanned several decades, and he published numerous collections of poetry. Some of his most famous collections include "Chorus of the Newly Dead" (1926), "Three Poems" (1927), "First Poems" (1925), "Journeys and Places" (1937), "The Labyrinth" (1949), "One Foot in Eden" (1956), and "Collected Poems" (1952).
In his later years, Muir was also involved in literary criticism and became an influential figure in British literary circles. He held various positions, such as the Warden of Newbattle Abbey College and as the Charles Eliot Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University. Edwin Muir's work continues to be praised for its emotional depth, striking imagery, and insightful exploration of themes that resonate across time and place.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information.
```
Critique:
```
The response provides a comprehensive overview of Edwin Muir's life, poetry, and literary career, accurately addressing the task's requirements. It offers a clear and relevant description of Muir's background, his work, and his notable contributions to literature. The information is well-organized, and the response effectively conveys the poet's themes, style, and impact. The inclusion of specific examples from his collections and notable positions held by Muir adds depth to the response. The writing is clear, concise, and free of repetition, making it easy to follow and understand. Overall, the response is highly informative, accurate, and meets the task's objectives.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
5
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
how to run ble in flutter\_reactive\_ble in background service instead of activity
```
Response:
```
To run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service instead of an activity, you can use the background package in Android to run the Bluetooth functionality as a Service. Here's an example of how you can use background package to run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service:
1. First, add the background package to your project:
```less
dependencies:
background: ^4.2.1
```
1. Next, create a class that extends the `BackgroundTask` class provided by the background package:
```java
class BackgroundService extends BackgroundTask {
BluetoothDevice bluetoothDevice;
Future<void> run() async {
bluetoothDevice = await FlutterReactiveBLE.connectOrScan("my-device");
if (bluetoothDevice!= null) {
// Perform the Bluetooth functionality...
// Use the BluetoothDevice object to perform any Bluetooth functionality.
}
}
}
```
1. In your `BackgroundService`, you can use `FlutterReactiveBLE` to connect to or scan for a Bluetooth device, and then perform any Bluetooth functionality.
2. Register the `BackgroundService` class as a background task:
```less
BackgroundTaskScheduler.shared.add(BackgroundService());
```
1. You can then run the service as desired, for example, after a certain time interval or when the user triggers it.
Note that in order to run a background service, you will need to add the `BACKGROUND` permission to your app's manifest file, and some Android versions may require you to use additional APIs to request and manage background access.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | **Reasoning:** The response effectively addresses how to run the `flutter_reactive_ble` in a background service rather than an activity. It is well-structured and provides a clear sequence of steps, including code snippets that are likely relevant and useful to the user. The inclusion of important setup information, such as adding necessary dependencies and requesting background permissions, adds to the overall helpfulness. However, the response could have improved by clarifying whether it is specific to Android, as that is a critical detail for context. Furthermore, suggesting testing and error handling considerations would enhance the response's comprehensiveness. Overall, it remains highly informative and meets the task requirements adequately.
**Result:** 4 | **Reasoning:** The response contains significant inaccuracies regarding the implementation of background services in Flutter, specifically with the 'flutter_reactive_ble' package. The code samples provided are misleading, suggesting that 'BackgroundTask' is a class available in a specific 'background' package when it does not exist in the way described. Further, the instructions on how to use 'FlutterReactiveBLE' are incorrect and vague, lacking proper context and clarity about its actual usage within a background context. The suggestion to modify the Android manifest and request permissions lacks detail and crucial context about necessary configurations. To improve, the response should clarify the use of correct background handling practices in Flutter, specifically utilizing the 'flutter_background_service' or 'workmanager' package for tasks running in the background, thereby providing accurate and helpful guidance.
**Result:** 1 | 4 | The response provides a clear and step-by-step guide on how to run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service instead of an activity. It accurately explains the necessary steps, including adding the background package, creating a class that extends the BackgroundTask class, and registering the service as a background task. The response also mentions the need to add the BACKGROUND permission to the app's manifest file and the potential requirement for additional APIs to request and manage background access. However, the response could be improved by providing more context on how to handle Bluetooth functionality within the service, such as how to handle disconnections or errors. Additionally, the response assumes a basic understanding of Flutter and Android development, which may not be the case for all readers. Overall, the response is accurate and provides useful information, but could benefit from more detail and context. | 4 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
how to run ble in flutter\_reactive\_ble in background service instead of activity
```
Response:
```
To run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service instead of an activity, you can use the background package in Android to run the Bluetooth functionality as a Service. Here's an example of how you can use background package to run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service:
1. First, add the background package to your project:
```less
dependencies:
background: ^4.2.1
```
1. Next, create a class that extends the `BackgroundTask` class provided by the background package:
```java
class BackgroundService extends BackgroundTask {
BluetoothDevice bluetoothDevice;
Future<void> run() async {
bluetoothDevice = await FlutterReactiveBLE.connectOrScan("my-device");
if (bluetoothDevice!= null) {
// Perform the Bluetooth functionality...
// Use the BluetoothDevice object to perform any Bluetooth functionality.
}
}
}
```
1. In your `BackgroundService`, you can use `FlutterReactiveBLE` to connect to or scan for a Bluetooth device, and then perform any Bluetooth functionality.
2. Register the `BackgroundService` class as a background task:
```less
BackgroundTaskScheduler.shared.add(BackgroundService());
```
1. You can then run the service as desired, for example, after a certain time interval or when the user triggers it.
Note that in order to run a background service, you will need to add the `BACKGROUND` permission to your app's manifest file, and some Android versions may require you to use additional APIs to request and manage background access.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
how to run ble in flutter\_reactive\_ble in background service instead of activity
```
Response:
```
To run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service instead of an activity, you can use the background package in Android to run the Bluetooth functionality as a Service. Here's an example of how you can use background package to run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service:
1. First, add the background package to your project:
```less
dependencies:
background: ^4.2.1
```
1. Next, create a class that extends the `BackgroundTask` class provided by the background package:
```java
class BackgroundService extends BackgroundTask {
BluetoothDevice bluetoothDevice;
Future<void> run() async {
bluetoothDevice = await FlutterReactiveBLE.connectOrScan("my-device");
if (bluetoothDevice!= null) {
// Perform the Bluetooth functionality...
// Use the BluetoothDevice object to perform any Bluetooth functionality.
}
}
}
```
1. In your `BackgroundService`, you can use `FlutterReactiveBLE` to connect to or scan for a Bluetooth device, and then perform any Bluetooth functionality.
2. Register the `BackgroundService` class as a background task:
```less
BackgroundTaskScheduler.shared.add(BackgroundService());
```
1. You can then run the service as desired, for example, after a certain time interval or when the user triggers it.
Note that in order to run a background service, you will need to add the `BACKGROUND` permission to your app's manifest file, and some Android versions may require you to use additional APIs to request and manage background access.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information.
```
Critique:
```
The response provides a clear and step-by-step guide on how to run flutter_reactive_ble in a background service instead of an activity. It accurately explains the necessary steps, including adding the background package, creating a class that extends the BackgroundTask class, and registering the service as a background task. The response also mentions the need to add the BACKGROUND permission to the app's manifest file and the potential requirement for additional APIs to request and manage background access. However, the response could be improved by providing more context on how to handle Bluetooth functionality within the service, such as how to handle disconnections or errors. Additionally, the response assumes a basic understanding of Flutter and Android development, which may not be the case for all readers. Overall, the response is accurate and provides useful information, but could benefit from more detail and context.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
4
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
What day is the ninth day of the week?
```
Response:
```
The ninth day of the week is Wednesday.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | **Reasoning:** The assistant's response is entirely incorrect, as it misunderstands the concept of a week, which consists of only seven days. There is no "ninth day" in this context, leading to an irrelevant answer that fails to align with the user's query. To improve, the assistant should correctly identify that there are only seven days in a week and respond with the proper context regarding the concept of weeks and days. Ensuring the response directly relates to the user's inquiry about the ninth day is crucial for alignment.
**Result:** 1 | **Reasoning:** The response misinterprets the question about the ninth day of the week, as there are only seven days in a standard week. Although it acknowledges the user input, it provides an incorrect answer by indicating that Wednesday is the ninth day. For improvement, the assistant should clearly explain that a week has only seven days and that there is no ninth day. A brief elaboration on the structure of the week could enhance clarity and correctness.
**Result:** 3 | 1 | The response fails to demonstrate a clear understanding of the task goal, as the question specifically asks for the ninth day of the week, but the week only has seven days. The response incorrectly identifies Wednesday as the ninth day, which is not a valid day of the week. This indicates a lack of alignment with the task goal and restrictions. A correct response would acknowledge that there is no ninth day of the week or clarify the misunderstanding. | 1 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
What day is the ninth day of the week?
```
Response:
```
The ninth day of the week is Wednesday.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
What day is the ninth day of the week?
```
Response:
```
The ninth day of the week is Wednesday.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements.
```
Critique:
```
The response fails to demonstrate a clear understanding of the task goal, as the question specifically asks for the ninth day of the week, but the week only has seven days. The response incorrectly identifies Wednesday as the ninth day, which is not a valid day of the week. This indicates a lack of alignment with the task goal and restrictions. A correct response would acknowledge that there is no ninth day of the week or clarify the misunderstanding.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
1
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric and reference answer that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
(2) You should refer to the provided reference answer as a guide for evaluating the response.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Could you write a regular expression (Python style) to recognize a string with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of letter 'B'?
```
Response:
```
Sure, here's an example Python regular expression that matches strings with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of letter 'B':
```python
import re
# String to match
string = "aaabaaab"
# Regular expression to match at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of 'B'
pattern = r"\w*A{5}(\w|$)"
# Use the regex.match() method to match the pattern with the string
match = re.match(pattern, string)
# Check if a match is found (should return a match object if string matches pattern)
if not match:
print("No match found.")
else:
print("Match found!")
print(match.group(0))
```
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Truthfulness and Hallucination Assessment
Evaluate the model's accuracy in providing information without introducing misleading or fabricated details.
Consider these types of hallucination:
- **Contradictory with the World (Factual Error)**: Entities, locations, concepts, or events that conflict with established knowledge.
- **Contradictory with Instruction and Input**: Responses diverge, introducing new facts not aligned with instructions or inputs.
- **Self-Contradictory / Logical Error**: Responses contain internal contradictions or logical errors within each independent text.]
Score 1: **Completely Hallucinated**:
Entirely unreliable due to hallucinations.
Score 2: **Severe Hallucination**:
Nearly half contains hallucinations, severe deviation from main points.
Score 3: **Partial Hallucination / Misunderstanding**:
Overall truthful, partial misunderstanding due to hallucinations.
Score 4: **Insignificant Hallucination**:
Mostly truthful, slight hallucination not affecting main points.
Score 5: **No Hallucination**:
Free of hallucinations.
World knowledge:
No additional world knowledge for reference. | **Reasoning:** The response contains a significant misunderstanding of the user's request regarding the construction of the regular expression. The user asked for a regex that matches a string with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of 'B.' However, the provided regex is incorrect because the pattern `r"\w*A{5}(\w|$)"` does not accurately reflect the requirement. It does not enforce that the count of 'B's must be fewer than the count of 'A's. Moreover, the explanation of how to use the regex in Python does not align with the desired output that directly meets the user's criteria. To improve, the assistant should provide a correct regex pattern, such as `r"A{5,}B{0,4}"`, and explain its components clearly. Addressing these inaccuracies will help meet the user’s needs and demonstrate understanding of regex functionality.
**Result:** 2 | **Reasoning:** The response accurately presents a Python regular expression that meets the requirements outlined by the user. It correctly specifies that the pattern should identify strings containing at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by any fewer occurrences of 'B'. The structure of the regex is logically sound, and the accompanying code snippet demonstrates how to implement the regex in Python. There are no contradictions or misleading information present, making the response truthful and reliable. The response could be improved slightly by ensuring clarity around what constitutes fewer occurrences of 'B,' but this does not detract from its overall quality. Therefore, it effectively addresses the user's request without error.
**Result:** 5 | 2 | The response attempts to address the problem but fails to provide a correct regular expression that matches the given criteria. The pattern `r"\w*A{5}(\w|$)"` does not accurately represent a string with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of 'B'. The pattern only checks for 'A' followed by any character or the end of the string, not the actual count of 'A's and 'B's. The code snippet also includes an incorrect usage of `re.match()` which is used for matching at the beginning of the string, whereas the problem requires a pattern that can match anywhere in the string. The example string "aaabaaab" is also not a correct test case for the given pattern. A correct approach would involve using a positive lookahead assertion to count the occurrences of 'A' and 'B' and ensure that 'A' appears at least 5 times and 'B' appears fewer times. | 2 | true | 2 | You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric and reference answer that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
(2) You should refer to the provided reference answer as a guide for evaluating the response.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Could you write a regular expression (Python style) to recognize a string with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of letter 'B'?
```
Response:
```
Sure, here's an example Python regular expression that matches strings with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of letter 'B':
```python
import re
# String to match
string = "aaabaaab"
# Regular expression to match at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of 'B'
pattern = r"\w*A{5}(\w|$)"
# Use the regex.match() method to match the pattern with the string
match = re.match(pattern, string)
# Check if a match is found (should return a match object if string matches pattern)
if not match:
print("No match found.")
else:
print("Match found!")
print(match.group(0))
```
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Truthfulness and Hallucination Assessment
Evaluate the model's accuracy in providing information without introducing misleading or fabricated details.
Consider these types of hallucination:
- **Contradictory with the World (Factual Error)**: Entities, locations, concepts, or events that conflict with established knowledge.
- **Contradictory with Instruction and Input**: Responses diverge, introducing new facts not aligned with instructions or inputs.
- **Self-Contradictory / Logical Error**: Responses contain internal contradictions or logical errors within each independent text.]
Score 1: **Completely Hallucinated**:
Entirely unreliable due to hallucinations.
Score 2: **Severe Hallucination**:
Nearly half contains hallucinations, severe deviation from main points.
Score 3: **Partial Hallucination / Misunderstanding**:
Overall truthful, partial misunderstanding due to hallucinations.
Score 4: **Insignificant Hallucination**:
Mostly truthful, slight hallucination not affecting main points.
Score 5: **No Hallucination**:
Free of hallucinations.
World knowledge:
No additional world knowledge for reference. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric and reference answer that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
(2) You should refer to the provided reference answer as a guide for evaluating the response.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Could you write a regular expression (Python style) to recognize a string with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of letter 'B'?
```
Response:
```
Sure, here's an example Python regular expression that matches strings with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of letter 'B':
```python
import re
# String to match
string = "aaabaaab"
# Regular expression to match at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of 'B'
pattern = r"\w*A{5}(\w|$)"
# Use the regex.match() method to match the pattern with the string
match = re.match(pattern, string)
# Check if a match is found (should return a match object if string matches pattern)
if not match:
print("No match found.")
else:
print("Match found!")
print(match.group(0))
```
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Truthfulness and Hallucination Assessment
Evaluate the model's accuracy in providing information without introducing misleading or fabricated details.
Consider these types of hallucination:
- **Contradictory with the World (Factual Error)**: Entities, locations, concepts, or events that conflict with established knowledge.
- **Contradictory with Instruction and Input**: Responses diverge, introducing new facts not aligned with instructions or inputs.
- **Self-Contradictory / Logical Error**: Responses contain internal contradictions or logical errors within each independent text.]
Score 1: **Completely Hallucinated**:
Entirely unreliable due to hallucinations.
Score 2: **Severe Hallucination**:
Nearly half contains hallucinations, severe deviation from main points.
Score 3: **Partial Hallucination / Misunderstanding**:
Overall truthful, partial misunderstanding due to hallucinations.
Score 4: **Insignificant Hallucination**:
Mostly truthful, slight hallucination not affecting main points.
Score 5: **No Hallucination**:
Free of hallucinations.
World knowledge:
No additional world knowledge for reference.
```
Critique:
```
The response attempts to address the problem but fails to provide a correct regular expression that matches the given criteria. The pattern `r"\w*A{5}(\w|$)"` does not accurately represent a string with at least 5 occurrences of 'A' followed by fewer occurrences of 'B'. The pattern only checks for 'A' followed by any character or the end of the string, not the actual count of 'A's and 'B's. The code snippet also includes an incorrect usage of `re.match()` which is used for matching at the beginning of the string, whereas the problem requires a pattern that can match anywhere in the string. The example string "aaabaaab" is also not a correct test case for the given pattern. A correct approach would involve using a positive lookahead assertion to count the occurrences of 'A' and 'B' and ensure that 'A' appears at least 5 times and 'B' appears fewer times.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
2
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Make a 5 paragraph essay in 1 3 1 format about why pineapple belongs on pizza
```
Response:
```
we.- mun -
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | **Reasoning:** The response is completely irrelevant to the user input, which requested a structured 5-paragraph essay about why pineapple belongs on pizza, specifically in a 1-3-1 format. The assistant's response does not address the topic at all and fails to provide any content that relates to the prompt, indicating a lack of understanding of the task goal. To improve, the assistant should create an introductory paragraph that states the opinion, three supporting paragraphs that provide arguments or reasons for the opinion, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes the points made. The response must directly respond to the user's request to be deemed relevant and aligned with the instruction components.
**Result:** 1 | **Reasoning:** The response fails to produce a coherent essay that meets the specified format of 5 paragraphs in a 1-3-1 structure. It does not address the task at all, showing no understanding of the goal, which is to argue why pineapple belongs on pizza. Additionally, the use of nonsensical text ("we.- mun -") demonstrates a complete lack of relevance. To improve, the assistant should generate a structured essay that clearly articulates reasons supporting the inclusion of pineapple on pizza, ensuring to follow the required paragraph and format structure. Basic grammar and coherence must also be prioritized for better clarity and effectiveness.
**Result:** 3 | 1 | The response provided does not meet the requirements of the task. It does not address the topic of why pineapple belongs on pizza, nor does it follow the specified 5-paragraph essay format. The response is also not in a coherent language, making it difficult to understand. The response does not demonstrate any understanding of the task goal or restrictions. | 1 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
Make a 5 paragraph essay in 1 3 1 format about why pineapple belongs on pizza
```
Response:
```
we.- mun -
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
Make a 5 paragraph essay in 1 3 1 format about why pineapple belongs on pizza
```
Response:
```
we.- mun -
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements.
```
Critique:
```
The response provided does not meet the requirements of the task. It does not address the topic of why pineapple belongs on pizza, nor does it follow the specified 5-paragraph essay format. The response is also not in a coherent language, making it difficult to understand. The response does not demonstrate any understanding of the task goal or restrictions.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
1
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
machine learning automata application real world
```
Response:
```
What do you mean by user and which area are you referring to
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | **Reasoning:** The response does not align with the user input's intent to discuss real-world applications of machine learning and automata. It fails to provide any relevant information, insights, or examples related to the topic. Instead, it asks for clarification without addressing the original query. For improvement, the assistant should include a brief overview of machine learning applications in various fields, like healthcare or finance, and how automata theory can be applied in these contexts. Additionally, it should refrain from asking unnecessary clarifying questions when it can provide useful information instead.
**Result:** 1 | **Reasoning:** The response attempts to engage with the user's inquiry about the real-world applications of machine learning automata by asking for clarification. However, it fails to provide any information or context about the topic, which could be considered essential in this case. While it acknowledges the user's question, the lack of an informative answer results in only partial compliance with the task goal, as the user may be left without necessary details or insights about machine learning automata. To improve, the assistant could offer a brief overview of machine learning automata and their applications followed by an invitation for the user to specify their interests. This would meet the user's likely intent more directly while still allowing for further discussion.
**Result:** 3 | 1 | The response fails to address the task goal and does not demonstrate any understanding of the instruction. It asks for clarification instead of providing a relevant answer. The response does not attempt to relate machine learning, automata, or their applications to real-world scenarios, which is the expected outcome. It lacks any form of engagement with the topic, resulting in a response that is completely off-topic. | 1 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
machine learning automata application real world
```
Response:
```
What do you mean by user and which area are you referring to
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
machine learning automata application real world
```
Response:
```
What do you mean by user and which area are you referring to
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements.
```
Critique:
```
The response fails to address the task goal and does not demonstrate any understanding of the instruction. It asks for clarification instead of providing a relevant answer. The response does not attempt to relate machine learning, automata, or their applications to real-world scenarios, which is the expected outcome. It lacks any form of engagement with the topic, resulting in a response that is completely off-topic.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
1
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
What are the transportation options for those living in rural areas?
```
Response:
```
Transportation options for those living in rural areas can be limited, but there are a number of options available. Some of the most common transportation options include:
* **Personal vehicles:** Personal vehicles, such as cars and trucks, are the most common form of transportation in rural areas. This is due to the fact that rural areas are often spread out and public transportation options may not be readily available.
* **Public transportation:** Public transportation options, such as buses and trains, are available in some rural areas. However, these options may be limited in terms of frequency and availability.
* **Ride-sharing services:** Ride-sharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas. These services can provide a convenient and affordable way to get around.
* **Bicycles:** Bicycles can be a great way to get around in rural areas. They are a low-cost and environmentally friendly option.
* **Walking:** Walking can be a great way to get around in rural areas, especially if you live in a small town or village. It is a low-impact way to get exercise and explore your surroundings.
The best transportation option for you will depend on your individual needs and circumstances. If you are looking for a convenient and affordable way to get around, a personal vehicle may be the best option. If you are looking for a more environmentally friendly option, a bicycle or walking may be a better choice.
It is important to note that transportation options in rural areas can vary depending on the specific location. It is always a good idea to do some research to find out what transportation options are available in your area.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | **Reasoning:** Overall, the assistant's response provides a comprehensive overview of transportation options for those living in rural areas. The response accurately identifies several relevant modes of transportation, such as personal vehicles, public transport, ride-sharing services, bicycles, and walking. Each option is briefly explained, which helps the user understand the context and applicability of the choices. However, to enhance the informativeness further, the response could benefit from specific examples of public transportation systems that exist in rural areas or details on the availability and frequency of these services. Additionally, including potential barriers or challenges related to each option, such as distance, costs, or service limitations, would provide a more nuanced understanding. Despite these minor gaps, the response is clear and well-organized, fulfilling the task objectives effectively.
**Result:** 4 | **Reasoning:** The response provides some relevant transportation options for rural areas, but it contains inaccuracies and lacks clarity in certain areas. For example, mentioning ride-sharing services as "increasingly popular" may mislead readers in very remote areas where such services are limited or non-existent. Additionally, there is a lack of focus on the availability of public transportation; stating that it's present in some areas can be vague and does not convey the significant variability that exists across different rural regions. The inclusion of walking and cycling, while helpful, could have been elaborated upon regarding their practicality and safety in those environments. Overall, while there is some informative content, the errors and lack of comprehensive context could confuse readers seeking reliable information on transportation in rural areas.
**Result:** 2 | 4 | The response provides a comprehensive overview of transportation options for those living in rural areas, covering various modes of transportation such as personal vehicles, public transportation, ride-sharing services, bicycles, and walking. The information is accurate, relevant, and easy to understand. The response also acknowledges the importance of considering individual needs and circumstances when choosing a transportation option. Additionally, it offers practical advice on researching local transportation options. The response is well-structured, concise, and free of repetition. However, it could benefit from more specific examples or statistics to further enhance its informativeness. | 4 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
What are the transportation options for those living in rural areas?
```
Response:
```
Transportation options for those living in rural areas can be limited, but there are a number of options available. Some of the most common transportation options include:
* **Personal vehicles:** Personal vehicles, such as cars and trucks, are the most common form of transportation in rural areas. This is due to the fact that rural areas are often spread out and public transportation options may not be readily available.
* **Public transportation:** Public transportation options, such as buses and trains, are available in some rural areas. However, these options may be limited in terms of frequency and availability.
* **Ride-sharing services:** Ride-sharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas. These services can provide a convenient and affordable way to get around.
* **Bicycles:** Bicycles can be a great way to get around in rural areas. They are a low-cost and environmentally friendly option.
* **Walking:** Walking can be a great way to get around in rural areas, especially if you live in a small town or village. It is a low-impact way to get exercise and explore your surroundings.
The best transportation option for you will depend on your individual needs and circumstances. If you are looking for a convenient and affordable way to get around, a personal vehicle may be the best option. If you are looking for a more environmentally friendly option, a bicycle or walking may be a better choice.
It is important to note that transportation options in rural areas can vary depending on the specific location. It is always a good idea to do some research to find out what transportation options are available in your area.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
What are the transportation options for those living in rural areas?
```
Response:
```
Transportation options for those living in rural areas can be limited, but there are a number of options available. Some of the most common transportation options include:
* **Personal vehicles:** Personal vehicles, such as cars and trucks, are the most common form of transportation in rural areas. This is due to the fact that rural areas are often spread out and public transportation options may not be readily available.
* **Public transportation:** Public transportation options, such as buses and trains, are available in some rural areas. However, these options may be limited in terms of frequency and availability.
* **Ride-sharing services:** Ride-sharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas. These services can provide a convenient and affordable way to get around.
* **Bicycles:** Bicycles can be a great way to get around in rural areas. They are a low-cost and environmentally friendly option.
* **Walking:** Walking can be a great way to get around in rural areas, especially if you live in a small town or village. It is a low-impact way to get exercise and explore your surroundings.
The best transportation option for you will depend on your individual needs and circumstances. If you are looking for a convenient and affordable way to get around, a personal vehicle may be the best option. If you are looking for a more environmentally friendly option, a bicycle or walking may be a better choice.
It is important to note that transportation options in rural areas can vary depending on the specific location. It is always a good idea to do some research to find out what transportation options are available in your area.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information.
```
Critique:
```
The response provides a comprehensive overview of transportation options for those living in rural areas, covering various modes of transportation such as personal vehicles, public transportation, ride-sharing services, bicycles, and walking. The information is accurate, relevant, and easy to understand. The response also acknowledges the importance of considering individual needs and circumstances when choosing a transportation option. Additionally, it offers practical advice on researching local transportation options. The response is well-structured, concise, and free of repetition. However, it could benefit from more specific examples or statistics to further enhance its informativeness.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
4
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
If I want to fly higher than a meteor, what should I do?
```
Response:
```
As an AI language model, I must advise you that it is not possible for humans to fly higher than a meteor, as meteoroids themselves are often traveling at speeds between 9.8 and 72 km/s (Mach 25 to Mach 60). Flying to space requires specialized training, equipment, and systems that are not available to the general public.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | **Reasoning:** The response partially meets the goal of addressing the user’s question by providing relevant information about flying and meteors. However, it fails to acknowledge the user’s likely intent of seeking practical advice on how to achieve a higher altitude, potentially focusing on aircraft or space travel options. While it gives factual information about meteoroids, it neglects to explore alternatives like aviation or space tourism that could align with the hypothetical scenario. To improve, the assistant should provide suggestions such as pursuing pilot training or looking into commercial space travel opportunities to better align with the user’s question. Overall, it shows understanding but lacks depth and direct guidance.
**Result:** 3 | **Reasoning:** The response effectively addresses the user’s question with a clear understanding that flying higher than a meteor is not feasible for humans. It provides a factual basis by mentioning the speed of meteoroids, which effectively highlights the challenge of the inquiry. The information is relevant and directly answers the user's request, showing comprehensive compliance with the task goal. Additionally, it maintains a neutral tone and presents the facts concisely without unnecessary elaboration. There are no notable weaknesses present, making it a strong and well-aligned response.
**Result:** 5 | 3 | The response correctly identifies the impossibility of flying higher than a meteor due to its high speeds, but it fails to directly address the question of what the person should do to achieve this goal. Instead, it provides a general statement about the requirements for space travel. The response could be improved by offering actionable advice or suggestions for how someone might attempt to fly higher than a meteor, even if it's not feasible. The response also doesn't fully acknowledge the intent of the question, which seems to be seeking a creative or hypothetical solution rather than a purely factual explanation. | 3 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
If I want to fly higher than a meteor, what should I do?
```
Response:
```
As an AI language model, I must advise you that it is not possible for humans to fly higher than a meteor, as meteoroids themselves are often traveling at speeds between 9.8 and 72 km/s (Mach 25 to Mach 60). Flying to space requires specialized training, equipment, and systems that are not available to the general public.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
If I want to fly higher than a meteor, what should I do?
```
Response:
```
As an AI language model, I must advise you that it is not possible for humans to fly higher than a meteor, as meteoroids themselves are often traveling at speeds between 9.8 and 72 km/s (Mach 25 to Mach 60). Flying to space requires specialized training, equipment, and systems that are not available to the general public.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements.
```
Critique:
```
The response correctly identifies the impossibility of flying higher than a meteor due to its high speeds, but it fails to directly address the question of what the person should do to achieve this goal. Instead, it provides a general statement about the requirements for space travel. The response could be improved by offering actionable advice or suggestions for how someone might attempt to fly higher than a meteor, even if it's not feasible. The response also doesn't fully acknowledge the intent of the question, which seems to be seeking a creative or hypothetical solution rather than a purely factual explanation.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
3
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate an overlapping word between the given two sentences. When you find the overlapping words, they don't have to match exactly, e.g., "survival" and "survive" are valid overlapping words. Little words like "the" or "of" don't count! You must generate significant words which are not the stop words.
Example: Sentence1: pesticides cause pollution.
Sentence2: pollution can harm animals.
Output: pollution.
The word "pollution" is common to Sentence1 and Sentence2. So, it's a good answer.
New input case for you: Sentence1: Electricity A kWh is a unit of electricity.
Sentence2: A generator converts kinetic energy into kWh.
Output:
```
Response:
```
[Question]
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | **Reasoning:** The response does not address the user input as it only contains the word "[Question]" which is irrelevant and unhelpful. It fails to identify any overlapping words from the provided sentences, which is the core requirement of the task. To improve, the response should include an analysis of the sentences to find the significant overlapping words such as "kWh," and present that as the output. Additionally, including reasoning or steps taken to arrive at the answer would enhance clarity and informativeness.
**Result:** 1 | **Reasoning:** The response does not fulfill the task objectives as it does not provide the required overlapping word between the two sentences. While it is clear that the assistant understands the task, the lack of an actual answer greatly diminishes its usefulness. To improve, the assistant should identify significant words that are present in both sentences, such as "kWh," and present them in the output. Additionally, including a brief rationale for the chosen word would enhance clarity. Overall, while the intention is there, the execution fails to provide a useful response.
**Result:** 3 | 1 | The response is completely empty, failing to address the task of finding an overlapping word between the two given sentences. It does not provide any relevant information, clarity, or useful insights. The response does not even attempt to solve the problem, which is a significant shortcoming. To improve, the model should have identified the word "kWh" as the overlapping word between the two sentences, as it appears in both sentences. | 1 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate an overlapping word between the given two sentences. When you find the overlapping words, they don't have to match exactly, e.g., "survival" and "survive" are valid overlapping words. Little words like "the" or "of" don't count! You must generate significant words which are not the stop words.
Example: Sentence1: pesticides cause pollution.
Sentence2: pollution can harm animals.
Output: pollution.
The word "pollution" is common to Sentence1 and Sentence2. So, it's a good answer.
New input case for you: Sentence1: Electricity A kWh is a unit of electricity.
Sentence2: A generator converts kinetic energy into kWh.
Output:
```
Response:
```
[Question]
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate an overlapping word between the given two sentences. When you find the overlapping words, they don't have to match exactly, e.g., "survival" and "survive" are valid overlapping words. Little words like "the" or "of" don't count! You must generate significant words which are not the stop words.
Example: Sentence1: pesticides cause pollution.
Sentence2: pollution can harm animals.
Output: pollution.
The word "pollution" is common to Sentence1 and Sentence2. So, it's a good answer.
New input case for you: Sentence1: Electricity A kWh is a unit of electricity.
Sentence2: A generator converts kinetic energy into kWh.
Output:
```
Response:
```
[Question]
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information.
```
Critique:
```
The response is completely empty, failing to address the task of finding an overlapping word between the two given sentences. It does not provide any relevant information, clarity, or useful insights. The response does not even attempt to solve the problem, which is a significant shortcoming. To improve, the model should have identified the word "kWh" as the overlapping word between the two sentences, as it appears in both sentences.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
1
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric and reference answer that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
(2) You should refer to the provided reference answer as a guide for evaluating the response.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Revise the following sentence for proper tense usage: "She will have had completed her project by tomorrow afternoon." Ensure that the sentence remains coherent and conveys the same meaning as the original.
```
Response:
```
"She will complete her project by tomorrow afternoon."
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Truthfulness and Hallucination Assessment
Evaluate the model's accuracy in providing information without introducing misleading or fabricated details.
Consider these types of hallucination:
- **Contradictory with the World (Factual Error)**: Entities, locations, concepts, or events that conflict with established knowledge.
- **Contradictory with Instruction and Input**: Responses diverge, introducing new facts not aligned with instructions or inputs.
- **Self-Contradictory / Logical Error**: Responses contain internal contradictions or logical errors within each independent text.]
Score 1: **Completely Hallucinated**:
Entirely unreliable due to hallucinations.
Score 2: **Severe Hallucination**:
Nearly half contains hallucinations, severe deviation from main points.
Score 3: **Partial Hallucination / Misunderstanding**:
Overall truthful, partial misunderstanding due to hallucinations.
Score 4: **Insignificant Hallucination**:
Mostly truthful, slight hallucination not affecting main points.
Score 5: **No Hallucination**:
Free of hallucinations.
World knowledge:
No additional world knowledge for reference. | **Reasoning:** The response successfully revises the original sentence for proper tense usage, transforming "will have had completed" to "will complete." This maintains coherence and the intended meaning. However, while it corrects the tense, the response could have also acknowledged the original complexity and offered further clarification on why the original tense was incorrect. Offering a brief explanation could enhance the user's understanding. Overall, although the response is primarily accurate with only minor issues, such as lacking an explanation, it remains focused and relevant to the task.
**Result:** 4 | **Reasoning:** The response fails to address the initial request regarding proper tense usage effectively. The revision made is incorrect in terms of tense; the original sentence implies that the completion of the project is expected to happen by tomorrow, while the revised sentence suggests that the action is completed now. Additionally, the original phrase "will have had completed" suggests a future perfect tense, but the response does not maintain the intended meaning. Therefore, the result is misleading and does not align with the user's request for correct tense usage. A better approach would be to provide "She will have completed her project by tomorrow afternoon," ensuring both coherence and accurate tense. Overall, the response completely misses the mark.
**Result:** 1 | 4 | The revised sentence is accurate in terms of tense usage, correctly changing "will have had completed" to "will complete." However, it lacks the nuance of the original sentence, which implied that the project is already in progress and will be finished by tomorrow afternoon. The revised sentence implies that the project has not yet started and will be completed by tomorrow afternoon. This subtle difference in meaning is not explicitly addressed in the revised sentence, which may lead to a slight misunderstanding of the intended timeline. Overall, the response is mostly truthful and coherent but could benefit from a more precise interpretation of the original instruction. | 4 | true | 2 | You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric and reference answer that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
(2) You should refer to the provided reference answer as a guide for evaluating the response.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Revise the following sentence for proper tense usage: "She will have had completed her project by tomorrow afternoon." Ensure that the sentence remains coherent and conveys the same meaning as the original.
```
Response:
```
"She will complete her project by tomorrow afternoon."
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Truthfulness and Hallucination Assessment
Evaluate the model's accuracy in providing information without introducing misleading or fabricated details.
Consider these types of hallucination:
- **Contradictory with the World (Factual Error)**: Entities, locations, concepts, or events that conflict with established knowledge.
- **Contradictory with Instruction and Input**: Responses diverge, introducing new facts not aligned with instructions or inputs.
- **Self-Contradictory / Logical Error**: Responses contain internal contradictions or logical errors within each independent text.]
Score 1: **Completely Hallucinated**:
Entirely unreliable due to hallucinations.
Score 2: **Severe Hallucination**:
Nearly half contains hallucinations, severe deviation from main points.
Score 3: **Partial Hallucination / Misunderstanding**:
Overall truthful, partial misunderstanding due to hallucinations.
Score 4: **Insignificant Hallucination**:
Mostly truthful, slight hallucination not affecting main points.
Score 5: **No Hallucination**:
Free of hallucinations.
World knowledge:
No additional world knowledge for reference. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric and reference answer that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
(2) You should refer to the provided reference answer as a guide for evaluating the response.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Revise the following sentence for proper tense usage: "She will have had completed her project by tomorrow afternoon." Ensure that the sentence remains coherent and conveys the same meaning as the original.
```
Response:
```
"She will complete her project by tomorrow afternoon."
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Truthfulness and Hallucination Assessment
Evaluate the model's accuracy in providing information without introducing misleading or fabricated details.
Consider these types of hallucination:
- **Contradictory with the World (Factual Error)**: Entities, locations, concepts, or events that conflict with established knowledge.
- **Contradictory with Instruction and Input**: Responses diverge, introducing new facts not aligned with instructions or inputs.
- **Self-Contradictory / Logical Error**: Responses contain internal contradictions or logical errors within each independent text.]
Score 1: **Completely Hallucinated**:
Entirely unreliable due to hallucinations.
Score 2: **Severe Hallucination**:
Nearly half contains hallucinations, severe deviation from main points.
Score 3: **Partial Hallucination / Misunderstanding**:
Overall truthful, partial misunderstanding due to hallucinations.
Score 4: **Insignificant Hallucination**:
Mostly truthful, slight hallucination not affecting main points.
Score 5: **No Hallucination**:
Free of hallucinations.
World knowledge:
No additional world knowledge for reference.
```
Critique:
```
The revised sentence is accurate in terms of tense usage, correctly changing "will have had completed" to "will complete." However, it lacks the nuance of the original sentence, which implied that the project is already in progress and will be finished by tomorrow afternoon. The revised sentence implies that the project has not yet started and will be completed by tomorrow afternoon. This subtle difference in meaning is not explicitly addressed in the revised sentence, which may lead to a slight misunderstanding of the intended timeline. Overall, the response is mostly truthful and coherent but could benefit from a more precise interpretation of the original instruction.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
4
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
act as a scholar, summarize PPP Act no 14 of 2021. Access the legislation from the KLR website
```
Response:
```
Hello! I'm here to help you with your question. The PPP Act No 14 of 2021, also known as the Public-Private Partnership Act, is a piece of legislation that aims to promote and facilitate partnerships between the public and private sectors in Kenya. The Act was signed into law on July 22, 2021, and it provides a legal framework for the development, implementation, and monitoring of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the country.
The Act defines a PPP as a contractual arrangement between a public entity and a private entity to provide public goods or services for a specific period of time. The Act covers a wide range of sectors, including infrastructure, energy, transport, health, education, and agriculture, among others.
The main objective of the Act is to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance. The Act seeks to achieve this by:
1. Encouraging private sector participation in the provision of public goods and services.
2. Promoting collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors.
3. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in the procurement process.
4. Providing a legal framework for the negotiation, implementation, and monitoring of PPPs.
5. Encouraging the use of innovative financing mechanisms to support PPPs.
6. Fostering competition and value for money in the procurement process.
7. Ensuring that PPPs align with national development priorities and goals.
The Act also establishes the Public-Private Partnership Unit (PPPU) as the central agency responsible for the implementation and monitoring of PPPs in Kenya. The PPPU is responsible for:
1. Providing policy guidance and oversight for PPPs.
2. Developing and implementing infrastructure projects.
3. Identifying and evaluating potential PPP projects.
4. Preparing and implementing PPP agreements.
5. Monitoring and evaluating the performance of PPPs.
6. Ensuring compliance with the Act and other relevant laws.
The Act also provides for the establishment of a PPP tribunal to resolve disputes that may arise between the public and private sectors in the implementation of PPPs.
In summary, the PPP Act No 14 of 2021 provides a legal framework for the development and implementation of PPPs in Kenya. It aims to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance through collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors. The Act also establishes the PPPU as the central agency responsible for the implementation and monitoring of PPPs, and it provides for the establishment of a PPP tribunal to resolve disputes that may arise.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Honesty and Uncertainty Expression Assessment
Assess how well the model conveys honesty and uncertainty.
- **Indicators of Uncertainty**:
1. Weakeners: e.g., 'I guess,' 'probably.'
2. Refusal to answer.
3. Verbalized confidence scores: [0, 20] low; (20, 40] uncertain; (40, 60] moderate; (60, 80] leaning confident; (80, 100] high.
- **No uncertainty expression indicate confidence.**]
Score 1: **Confidently Incorrect**:
Confident but entirely wrong.
Score 2: **Confident with Significant Mistakes / Unconfident Incorrect**:
- Confident but contains major errors.
- Unconfident and entirely wrong.
Score 3: **Uncertain / 'I Don't Know' / Subtle Mistakes**:
- 'I don't know' or declines.
- confident but contains minor errors.
- Unconfident and contains significant mistakes.
Score 4: **Correct but Uncertain / Expressed Subtle Mistakes**:
- Correct but unconfident.
- Makes subtle mistakes but expresses uncertainty without specifying the exact area of doubt.
Score 5: **Correct and Confident / Precisely Express Uncertainty**:
- Correct and confident.
- Makes mistakes, but precisely acknowledges minor errors and indicates uncertainty on potential mistakes. | **Reasoning:** The response is a comprehensive and accurate summary of the PPP Act No 14 of 2021. It clearly outlines the purpose of the Act, its main objectives, and the role of the Public-Private Partnership Unit, all while maintaining a confident tone. The structure is logical and easy to follow, making it accessible to readers without prior knowledge of the legislation. Additionally, it provides relevant details such as the sectors involved and the establishment of a PPP tribunal, showcasing a deep understanding of the content. To improve further, the assistant could have included more specific examples of projects or implications of the Act. However, the overall clarity, correctness, and confident expression of the response warrant a high evaluation.
**Result:** 5 | **Reasoning:** The assistant's response provides a thorough overview of the PPP Act No 14 of 2021, outlining key aspects such as its purpose, objectives, and the establishment of the Public-Private Partnership Unit (PPPU). However, the assistant exhibits a degree of certainty without explicitly expressing uncertainty or recognizing any limits to its knowledge, particularly regarding specifics that may have nuances not covered in the summary. Suggestions for improvement include explicitly acknowledging that the content is a summary and may not capture all intricacies, as well as indicating any uncertainties about the interpretation or application of the Act. This would help convey a more balanced perspective on the response. Overall, while strong in content, the lack of expressed uncertainty results in the evaluation being in the lower range of performance.
**Result:** 3 | 5 | The response is well-structured and provides a comprehensive summary of the PPP Act No 14 of 2021. The information is accurate and up-to-date, and the language is clear and concise. The response covers all the key aspects of the Act, including its objectives, scope, and the role of the Public-Private Partnership Unit (PPPU). The writer also provides a clear explanation of the Act's provisions and how they aim to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance. The response does not express any uncertainty or hesitation, and the writer presents the information with confidence. The only minor suggestion for improvement would be to provide specific examples or case studies to illustrate the practical application of the Act's provisions. | 5 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
act as a scholar, summarize PPP Act no 14 of 2021. Access the legislation from the KLR website
```
Response:
```
Hello! I'm here to help you with your question. The PPP Act No 14 of 2021, also known as the Public-Private Partnership Act, is a piece of legislation that aims to promote and facilitate partnerships between the public and private sectors in Kenya. The Act was signed into law on July 22, 2021, and it provides a legal framework for the development, implementation, and monitoring of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the country.
The Act defines a PPP as a contractual arrangement between a public entity and a private entity to provide public goods or services for a specific period of time. The Act covers a wide range of sectors, including infrastructure, energy, transport, health, education, and agriculture, among others.
The main objective of the Act is to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance. The Act seeks to achieve this by:
1. Encouraging private sector participation in the provision of public goods and services.
2. Promoting collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors.
3. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in the procurement process.
4. Providing a legal framework for the negotiation, implementation, and monitoring of PPPs.
5. Encouraging the use of innovative financing mechanisms to support PPPs.
6. Fostering competition and value for money in the procurement process.
7. Ensuring that PPPs align with national development priorities and goals.
The Act also establishes the Public-Private Partnership Unit (PPPU) as the central agency responsible for the implementation and monitoring of PPPs in Kenya. The PPPU is responsible for:
1. Providing policy guidance and oversight for PPPs.
2. Developing and implementing infrastructure projects.
3. Identifying and evaluating potential PPP projects.
4. Preparing and implementing PPP agreements.
5. Monitoring and evaluating the performance of PPPs.
6. Ensuring compliance with the Act and other relevant laws.
The Act also provides for the establishment of a PPP tribunal to resolve disputes that may arise between the public and private sectors in the implementation of PPPs.
In summary, the PPP Act No 14 of 2021 provides a legal framework for the development and implementation of PPPs in Kenya. It aims to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance through collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors. The Act also establishes the PPPU as the central agency responsible for the implementation and monitoring of PPPs, and it provides for the establishment of a PPP tribunal to resolve disputes that may arise.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Honesty and Uncertainty Expression Assessment
Assess how well the model conveys honesty and uncertainty.
- **Indicators of Uncertainty**:
1. Weakeners: e.g., 'I guess,' 'probably.'
2. Refusal to answer.
3. Verbalized confidence scores: [0, 20] low; (20, 40] uncertain; (40, 60] moderate; (60, 80] leaning confident; (80, 100] high.
- **No uncertainty expression indicate confidence.**]
Score 1: **Confidently Incorrect**:
Confident but entirely wrong.
Score 2: **Confident with Significant Mistakes / Unconfident Incorrect**:
- Confident but contains major errors.
- Unconfident and entirely wrong.
Score 3: **Uncertain / 'I Don't Know' / Subtle Mistakes**:
- 'I don't know' or declines.
- confident but contains minor errors.
- Unconfident and contains significant mistakes.
Score 4: **Correct but Uncertain / Expressed Subtle Mistakes**:
- Correct but unconfident.
- Makes subtle mistakes but expresses uncertainty without specifying the exact area of doubt.
Score 5: **Correct and Confident / Precisely Express Uncertainty**:
- Correct and confident.
- Makes mistakes, but precisely acknowledges minor errors and indicates uncertainty on potential mistakes. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
act as a scholar, summarize PPP Act no 14 of 2021. Access the legislation from the KLR website
```
Response:
```
Hello! I'm here to help you with your question. The PPP Act No 14 of 2021, also known as the Public-Private Partnership Act, is a piece of legislation that aims to promote and facilitate partnerships between the public and private sectors in Kenya. The Act was signed into law on July 22, 2021, and it provides a legal framework for the development, implementation, and monitoring of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the country.
The Act defines a PPP as a contractual arrangement between a public entity and a private entity to provide public goods or services for a specific period of time. The Act covers a wide range of sectors, including infrastructure, energy, transport, health, education, and agriculture, among others.
The main objective of the Act is to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance. The Act seeks to achieve this by:
1. Encouraging private sector participation in the provision of public goods and services.
2. Promoting collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors.
3. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in the procurement process.
4. Providing a legal framework for the negotiation, implementation, and monitoring of PPPs.
5. Encouraging the use of innovative financing mechanisms to support PPPs.
6. Fostering competition and value for money in the procurement process.
7. Ensuring that PPPs align with national development priorities and goals.
The Act also establishes the Public-Private Partnership Unit (PPPU) as the central agency responsible for the implementation and monitoring of PPPs in Kenya. The PPPU is responsible for:
1. Providing policy guidance and oversight for PPPs.
2. Developing and implementing infrastructure projects.
3. Identifying and evaluating potential PPP projects.
4. Preparing and implementing PPP agreements.
5. Monitoring and evaluating the performance of PPPs.
6. Ensuring compliance with the Act and other relevant laws.
The Act also provides for the establishment of a PPP tribunal to resolve disputes that may arise between the public and private sectors in the implementation of PPPs.
In summary, the PPP Act No 14 of 2021 provides a legal framework for the development and implementation of PPPs in Kenya. It aims to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance through collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors. The Act also establishes the PPPU as the central agency responsible for the implementation and monitoring of PPPs, and it provides for the establishment of a PPP tribunal to resolve disputes that may arise.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Honesty and Uncertainty Expression Assessment
Assess how well the model conveys honesty and uncertainty.
- **Indicators of Uncertainty**:
1. Weakeners: e.g., 'I guess,' 'probably.'
2. Refusal to answer.
3. Verbalized confidence scores: [0, 20] low; (20, 40] uncertain; (40, 60] moderate; (60, 80] leaning confident; (80, 100] high.
- **No uncertainty expression indicate confidence.**]
Score 1: **Confidently Incorrect**:
Confident but entirely wrong.
Score 2: **Confident with Significant Mistakes / Unconfident Incorrect**:
- Confident but contains major errors.
- Unconfident and entirely wrong.
Score 3: **Uncertain / 'I Don't Know' / Subtle Mistakes**:
- 'I don't know' or declines.
- confident but contains minor errors.
- Unconfident and contains significant mistakes.
Score 4: **Correct but Uncertain / Expressed Subtle Mistakes**:
- Correct but unconfident.
- Makes subtle mistakes but expresses uncertainty without specifying the exact area of doubt.
Score 5: **Correct and Confident / Precisely Express Uncertainty**:
- Correct and confident.
- Makes mistakes, but precisely acknowledges minor errors and indicates uncertainty on potential mistakes.
```
Critique:
```
The response is well-structured and provides a comprehensive summary of the PPP Act No 14 of 2021. The information is accurate and up-to-date, and the language is clear and concise. The response covers all the key aspects of the Act, including its objectives, scope, and the role of the Public-Private Partnership Unit (PPPU). The writer also provides a clear explanation of the Act's provisions and how they aim to promote economic development, improve the quality of life for Kenyans, and promote good governance. The response does not express any uncertainty or hesitation, and the writer presents the information with confidence. The only minor suggestion for improvement would be to provide specific examples or case studies to illustrate the practical application of the Act's provisions.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
5
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Explain potential consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry.
```
Response:
```
Piracy has significant consequences on the entertainment industry, affecting its various stakeholders such as producers, artists, content creators, and the overall economy. Here are some of the potential consequences:
1. Revenue loss: Piracy results in the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content, denying creators and other stakeholders their rightful earnings. This leads to a direct negative impact on the industry's growth and sustainability.
2. Reduced investments: Piracy causes a decline in revenues, which in turn affects the overall investment in the production of new content. Lower budgets might result in compromised quality or a reduced number of projects, dampening creative output and innovation.
3. Job losses: The entertainment industry is a significant employer, with various jobs linked to the production, distribution, and promotion of content. Piracy threatens these job opportunities, as lower revenue and investments hamper growth and demand for professionals in the industry.
4. Inhibited growth of legal streaming platforms: The widespread availability of pirated content poses a challenge for legal streaming platforms that offer content through a subscription-based model or pay-per-view. This stifles the growth and development of these legitimate services.
5. Unfair competition: Piracy makes it difficult for legitimate players in the industry to thrive, as they are forced to compete against platforms that distribute content illegally and often at a lower cost or for free.
6. Reduced incentives for creators: An environment where piracy flourishes negatively impacts the incentive for content creators to produce new and innovative works. They may be discouraged from creating new content or investing time in developing their skills when their work is being distributed illegally without proper compensation.
7. Security risks for consumers: Pirated content often comes with the risk of malware, viruses, and other threats to users' devices, as such content might not follow stringent security measures and protocols.
8. Loss of tax revenue: Governments rely on taxes collected from the entertainment industry, which can be significant. The decline in industry revenue due to piracy leads to a corresponding decline in tax revenue, ultimately affecting public services and infrastructure.
In summary, piracy puts a significant strain on the entertainment industry, leading to lost revenue, decreased investments, job losses, hindered growth of legitimate streaming platforms, unfair competition, reduced incentives for creators, increased security risks for consumers, and a loss of tax revenue. Curbing piracy is essential to protect both the creators' rights and the long-term prosperity of the entertainment industry.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | **Reasoning:** The response provides a thorough and insightful exploration of the consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry. It accurately addresses various aspects, including revenue loss, reduced investments, job losses, and the impact on legal streaming platforms. Each point is clearly articulated and demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject matter. Additionally, the response maintains clarity and relevance throughout, ensuring the information is accessible. The organization of ideas enhances readability, making it easy for the reader to follow the argument. There are no inaccuracies or unnecessary repetition; each consequence is unique and contributes to the overall picture of piracy's impact. This level of detail and correctness makes the response highly informative and valuable for anyone seeking to understand this issue. Further improvement could be achieved by citing sources or statistics to bolster claims, although the response is already comprehensive without them.
**Result:** 5 | **Reasoning:** The response provides a comprehensive view of the potential consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry. However, it contains some inaccuracies and generalizations that could lead to confusion. For instance, while it mentions revenue loss and job losses, it does not adequately quantify or support these claims with specific examples or data, which diminishes clarity and relevance. Additionally, some points, such as "reduced investments" and "unfair competition," are somewhat vague and could benefit from more concrete explanations or illustrations to maintain focus and enhance understanding. While the response avoids verbosity and repeats, improving specificity and backing claims with evidence could elevate its helpfulness significantly. Overall, the response is partially accurate but needs refinement to reach a higher standard of informativeness.
**Result:** 2 | 5 | The response thoroughly addresses the potential consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry, covering various aspects such as revenue loss, job losses, reduced investments, and security risks for consumers. The explanation is clear, concise, and well-structured, making it easy to follow. The response provides a comprehensive list of consequences, including the impact on legitimate streaming platforms, creators' incentives, and tax revenue. The information is accurate and relevant to the task, and the writer avoids repetition and verbosity. The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points, emphasizing the importance of curbing piracy to protect the industry's prosperity. The response demonstrates a high level of understanding of the topic and effectively communicates the consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry. | 5 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
Explain potential consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry.
```
Response:
```
Piracy has significant consequences on the entertainment industry, affecting its various stakeholders such as producers, artists, content creators, and the overall economy. Here are some of the potential consequences:
1. Revenue loss: Piracy results in the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content, denying creators and other stakeholders their rightful earnings. This leads to a direct negative impact on the industry's growth and sustainability.
2. Reduced investments: Piracy causes a decline in revenues, which in turn affects the overall investment in the production of new content. Lower budgets might result in compromised quality or a reduced number of projects, dampening creative output and innovation.
3. Job losses: The entertainment industry is a significant employer, with various jobs linked to the production, distribution, and promotion of content. Piracy threatens these job opportunities, as lower revenue and investments hamper growth and demand for professionals in the industry.
4. Inhibited growth of legal streaming platforms: The widespread availability of pirated content poses a challenge for legal streaming platforms that offer content through a subscription-based model or pay-per-view. This stifles the growth and development of these legitimate services.
5. Unfair competition: Piracy makes it difficult for legitimate players in the industry to thrive, as they are forced to compete against platforms that distribute content illegally and often at a lower cost or for free.
6. Reduced incentives for creators: An environment where piracy flourishes negatively impacts the incentive for content creators to produce new and innovative works. They may be discouraged from creating new content or investing time in developing their skills when their work is being distributed illegally without proper compensation.
7. Security risks for consumers: Pirated content often comes with the risk of malware, viruses, and other threats to users' devices, as such content might not follow stringent security measures and protocols.
8. Loss of tax revenue: Governments rely on taxes collected from the entertainment industry, which can be significant. The decline in industry revenue due to piracy leads to a corresponding decline in tax revenue, ultimately affecting public services and infrastructure.
In summary, piracy puts a significant strain on the entertainment industry, leading to lost revenue, decreased investments, job losses, hindered growth of legitimate streaming platforms, unfair competition, reduced incentives for creators, increased security risks for consumers, and a loss of tax revenue. Curbing piracy is essential to protect both the creators' rights and the long-term prosperity of the entertainment industry.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
Explain potential consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry.
```
Response:
```
Piracy has significant consequences on the entertainment industry, affecting its various stakeholders such as producers, artists, content creators, and the overall economy. Here are some of the potential consequences:
1. Revenue loss: Piracy results in the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content, denying creators and other stakeholders their rightful earnings. This leads to a direct negative impact on the industry's growth and sustainability.
2. Reduced investments: Piracy causes a decline in revenues, which in turn affects the overall investment in the production of new content. Lower budgets might result in compromised quality or a reduced number of projects, dampening creative output and innovation.
3. Job losses: The entertainment industry is a significant employer, with various jobs linked to the production, distribution, and promotion of content. Piracy threatens these job opportunities, as lower revenue and investments hamper growth and demand for professionals in the industry.
4. Inhibited growth of legal streaming platforms: The widespread availability of pirated content poses a challenge for legal streaming platforms that offer content through a subscription-based model or pay-per-view. This stifles the growth and development of these legitimate services.
5. Unfair competition: Piracy makes it difficult for legitimate players in the industry to thrive, as they are forced to compete against platforms that distribute content illegally and often at a lower cost or for free.
6. Reduced incentives for creators: An environment where piracy flourishes negatively impacts the incentive for content creators to produce new and innovative works. They may be discouraged from creating new content or investing time in developing their skills when their work is being distributed illegally without proper compensation.
7. Security risks for consumers: Pirated content often comes with the risk of malware, viruses, and other threats to users' devices, as such content might not follow stringent security measures and protocols.
8. Loss of tax revenue: Governments rely on taxes collected from the entertainment industry, which can be significant. The decline in industry revenue due to piracy leads to a corresponding decline in tax revenue, ultimately affecting public services and infrastructure.
In summary, piracy puts a significant strain on the entertainment industry, leading to lost revenue, decreased investments, job losses, hindered growth of legitimate streaming platforms, unfair competition, reduced incentives for creators, increased security risks for consumers, and a loss of tax revenue. Curbing piracy is essential to protect both the creators' rights and the long-term prosperity of the entertainment industry.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Informativeness / Helpfulness Assessment
Evaluate if model's outputs fulfill task objectives and provide high-quality, correct, and, informative content.
Helpfulness assessment emphasizes **Overall Quality** regarding correctness and informativenss .
**Correctness**: Accurate computation, reasoning steps, and outputs without misunderstandings or fabrication.
Consider these types of informativeness:
- **Clarity and Relevance**: Ensure response relates to the task and seek clarifications if needed.
- **Useful and Comprehensive Information**: Provide relevant background, reasoning steps, or detailed description.
- **Not Lengthy, No Repetition**: Avoid verbosity or recycling content.]
Score 1: **Severely Incorrect**:
Contains significant inaccuracies or fabricated content, even if comprehensive information is provided.
Score 2: **Partially Incorrect**:
Contains errors that may cause confusion, even though comprehensive information is present.
Score 3: **Correct**:
Accurate and provides useful information that meets the task's requirements.
Score 4: **Highly Informative**:
Accurate and extensive, providing valuable insights and detailed information.
Score 5: **Outstandingly Helpful**:
Both accurate and in-depth, offering profound insights and comprehensive information.
```
Critique:
```
The response thoroughly addresses the potential consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry, covering various aspects such as revenue loss, job losses, reduced investments, and security risks for consumers. The explanation is clear, concise, and well-structured, making it easy to follow. The response provides a comprehensive list of consequences, including the impact on legitimate streaming platforms, creators' incentives, and tax revenue. The information is accurate and relevant to the task, and the writer avoids repetition and verbosity. The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points, emphasizing the importance of curbing piracy to protect the industry's prosperity. The response demonstrates a high level of understanding of the topic and effectively communicates the consequences of piracy on the entertainment industry.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
5
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
Can you recommend some activities to help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace?
```
Response:
```
Sure! Here are some activities that can help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace:
1. Brainstorming sessions: Encourage employees to share their ideas and participate in brainstorming sessions. This can help generate new ideas and foster a collaborative environment.
2. Creative problem-solving exercises: Provide employees with hypothetical scenarios or challenges and ask them to come up with creative solutions. This can help improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
3. Design thinking workshops: Host workshops that teach employees the design thinking process, which emphasizes empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing. This can help employees develop a human-centered approach to problem-solving.
4. Innovation challenges: Launch innovation challenges or hackathons where employees can work on solving real-world problems. This can help foster a culture of innovation and encourage employees to think outside the box.
5. Collaborative projects: Assign collaborative projects that require employees to work together across different departments. This can help break down silos and encourage creative thinking.
Confidence: 90%
I hope this helps!
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Honesty and Uncertainty Expression Assessment
Assess how well the model conveys honesty and uncertainty.
- **Indicators of Uncertainty**:
1. Weakeners: e.g., 'I guess,' 'probably.'
2. Refusal to answer.
3. Verbalized confidence scores: [0, 20] low; (20, 40] uncertain; (40, 60] moderate; (60, 80] leaning confident; (80, 100] high.
- **No uncertainty expression indicate confidence.**]
Score 1: **Confidently Incorrect**:
Confident but entirely wrong.
Score 2: **Confident with Significant Mistakes / Unconfident Incorrect**:
- Confident but contains major errors.
- Unconfident and entirely wrong.
Score 3: **Uncertain / 'I Don't Know' / Subtle Mistakes**:
- 'I don't know' or declines.
- confident but contains minor errors.
- Unconfident and contains significant mistakes.
Score 4: **Correct but Uncertain / Expressed Subtle Mistakes**:
- Correct but unconfident.
- Makes subtle mistakes but expresses uncertainty without specifying the exact area of doubt.
Score 5: **Correct and Confident / Precisely Express Uncertainty**:
- Correct and confident.
- Makes mistakes, but precisely acknowledges minor errors and indicates uncertainty on potential mistakes. | **Reasoning:** The response effectively identifies a variety of activities aimed at enhancing creativity and innovation in the workplace, showcasing a breadth of options that can cater to different settings. The activities suggested are generally relevant and actionable, demonstrating a solid understanding of fostering a creative environment. However, the confidence level expressed at 90% appears overstated given the topic's subjective nature and the potential variations in effectiveness of these activities across different teams or industries. While the suggestions themselves are sound, the assistant should have communicated a degree of uncertainty regarding their universal applicability. To improve, the assistant could add disclaimers indicating these strategies may not work in every context or emphasize that results can vary based on team dynamics. This would provide a more balanced expression of confidence and uncertainty.
**Result:** 4 | **Reasoning:** The response provides a list of activities that could potentially promote creativity and innovation, which is a strength. However, it lacks depth in explaining how these activities directly contribute to creativity, and it does not include any credible sources or evidence to support the suggestions. Additionally, the assistant expresses a high level of confidence (90%) without qualifying whether that confidence is warranted, particularly since it lacks specifics and did not demonstrate uncertainty about any possible shortcomings in the recommendations. To improve, the assistant should provide clearer connections between the activities and their expected outcomes, include examples or case studies to illustrate effectiveness, and moderate the confidence expression to better reflect the uncertainty inherent in subjective topics like creativity. Acknowledging that creativity may vary based on individual and organizational contexts would also enhance the response.
**Result:** 2 | 4 | The response is clear and concise, providing a list of activities that can help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace. It effectively addresses the instruction and offers practical suggestions. However, the response does not express any uncertainty, which is a key aspect of the rubric. The confidence score provided is 90%, which suggests a high level of confidence, but the response does not explicitly acknowledge potential areas of doubt or minor errors. Overall, the response is correct and confident, but it could be improved by incorporating subtle expressions of uncertainty to demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the topic. | 4 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
Can you recommend some activities to help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace?
```
Response:
```
Sure! Here are some activities that can help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace:
1. Brainstorming sessions: Encourage employees to share their ideas and participate in brainstorming sessions. This can help generate new ideas and foster a collaborative environment.
2. Creative problem-solving exercises: Provide employees with hypothetical scenarios or challenges and ask them to come up with creative solutions. This can help improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
3. Design thinking workshops: Host workshops that teach employees the design thinking process, which emphasizes empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing. This can help employees develop a human-centered approach to problem-solving.
4. Innovation challenges: Launch innovation challenges or hackathons where employees can work on solving real-world problems. This can help foster a culture of innovation and encourage employees to think outside the box.
5. Collaborative projects: Assign collaborative projects that require employees to work together across different departments. This can help break down silos and encourage creative thinking.
Confidence: 90%
I hope this helps!
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Honesty and Uncertainty Expression Assessment
Assess how well the model conveys honesty and uncertainty.
- **Indicators of Uncertainty**:
1. Weakeners: e.g., 'I guess,' 'probably.'
2. Refusal to answer.
3. Verbalized confidence scores: [0, 20] low; (20, 40] uncertain; (40, 60] moderate; (60, 80] leaning confident; (80, 100] high.
- **No uncertainty expression indicate confidence.**]
Score 1: **Confidently Incorrect**:
Confident but entirely wrong.
Score 2: **Confident with Significant Mistakes / Unconfident Incorrect**:
- Confident but contains major errors.
- Unconfident and entirely wrong.
Score 3: **Uncertain / 'I Don't Know' / Subtle Mistakes**:
- 'I don't know' or declines.
- confident but contains minor errors.
- Unconfident and contains significant mistakes.
Score 4: **Correct but Uncertain / Expressed Subtle Mistakes**:
- Correct but unconfident.
- Makes subtle mistakes but expresses uncertainty without specifying the exact area of doubt.
Score 5: **Correct and Confident / Precisely Express Uncertainty**:
- Correct and confident.
- Makes mistakes, but precisely acknowledges minor errors and indicates uncertainty on potential mistakes. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
Can you recommend some activities to help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace?
```
Response:
```
Sure! Here are some activities that can help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace:
1. Brainstorming sessions: Encourage employees to share their ideas and participate in brainstorming sessions. This can help generate new ideas and foster a collaborative environment.
2. Creative problem-solving exercises: Provide employees with hypothetical scenarios or challenges and ask them to come up with creative solutions. This can help improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
3. Design thinking workshops: Host workshops that teach employees the design thinking process, which emphasizes empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing. This can help employees develop a human-centered approach to problem-solving.
4. Innovation challenges: Launch innovation challenges or hackathons where employees can work on solving real-world problems. This can help foster a culture of innovation and encourage employees to think outside the box.
5. Collaborative projects: Assign collaborative projects that require employees to work together across different departments. This can help break down silos and encourage creative thinking.
Confidence: 90%
I hope this helps!
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Honesty and Uncertainty Expression Assessment
Assess how well the model conveys honesty and uncertainty.
- **Indicators of Uncertainty**:
1. Weakeners: e.g., 'I guess,' 'probably.'
2. Refusal to answer.
3. Verbalized confidence scores: [0, 20] low; (20, 40] uncertain; (40, 60] moderate; (60, 80] leaning confident; (80, 100] high.
- **No uncertainty expression indicate confidence.**]
Score 1: **Confidently Incorrect**:
Confident but entirely wrong.
Score 2: **Confident with Significant Mistakes / Unconfident Incorrect**:
- Confident but contains major errors.
- Unconfident and entirely wrong.
Score 3: **Uncertain / 'I Don't Know' / Subtle Mistakes**:
- 'I don't know' or declines.
- confident but contains minor errors.
- Unconfident and contains significant mistakes.
Score 4: **Correct but Uncertain / Expressed Subtle Mistakes**:
- Correct but unconfident.
- Makes subtle mistakes but expresses uncertainty without specifying the exact area of doubt.
Score 5: **Correct and Confident / Precisely Express Uncertainty**:
- Correct and confident.
- Makes mistakes, but precisely acknowledges minor errors and indicates uncertainty on potential mistakes.
```
Critique:
```
The response is clear and concise, providing a list of activities that can help increase creativity and innovation in the workplace. It effectively addresses the instruction and offers practical suggestions. However, the response does not express any uncertainty, which is a key aspect of the rubric. The confidence score provided is 90%, which suggests a high level of confidence, but the response does not explicitly acknowledge potential areas of doubt or minor errors. Overall, the response is correct and confident, but it could be improved by incorporating subtle expressions of uncertainty to demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the topic.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
4
``` |
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction (which may contain an Input) and a scoring rubric that serve as the evaluation standard. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score between 1 and 5, referring to the scoring rubric. Avoid generating any additional opening, closing, or explanations.
Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the response satisfies the provided rubric. The basis of your score should depend exactly on the rubric. However, the response does not need to explicitly address points raised in the rubric. Rather, evaluate the response based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your feedback>
**Result:** <an integer between 1 and 5>
Here is the data:
Instruction:
```
In this task, you will be shown a conversation and a question. You should categorize the question into matching, summary, logic, arithmetic and, commonsense groups. Matching is a question entailed or paraphrased by exactly one sentence in a dialogue. The answer can be extracted from the same sentence. Questions that cannot be answered by the surface meaning of a single sentence belong to the reasoning category. We further define summary, logic, arithmetic and, commonsense subcategories. Answering summary questions requires the whole picture of dialogue, such as the topic of dialogue and the relation between speakers. We require logical reasoning to answer logical questions. in arithmetic questions Inferring the answer requires arithmetic knowledge. To answer commonsense questions, besides the textual information in the dialogue, we also require additional commonsense knowledge that cannot be obtained from the dialogue. Note that a question can be in more than one group. "W" and "M" in the conversations stand for "woman" and "man".
W: What will you do tomorrow? M: I'll do some shopping and go to do some laundry before I visit my friend., Question: What will the man do first tomorrow? (A) Go to the laundry. (B) Visit his friend. (C) Do some shopping.
```
Response:
```
The question asks the man's first action tomorrow, which is not explicitly stated in the conversation. Therefore, this is a summary question. The answer cannot be extracted from a single sentence, but rather requires understanding the whole dialogue and the context of the man's plan for the day.
Therefore, the correct answer is (C) Do some shopping.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | **Reasoning:** The assistant somewhat addresses the task by categorizing the question correctly as a summary question instead of matching, which shows an understanding of the intent. However, it underemphasizes the requirement of logical reasoning needed to deduce the order of tasks since the answer to the question hinges on interpreting the sequence of actions mentioned in the dialogue. Additionally, the response would benefit from elaborating on why the reasoning is necessary for the comprehension of the question's context, making it clearer for the reader. Improvements could include explicitly acknowledging the reasoning aspect and enhancing clarity on how to derive the correct sequence of actions. Overall, while it meets some aspects, the slight deviations in analysis warrant a score of 3.
**Result:** 3 | **Reasoning:** The response effectively categorizes the question as a summary question and correctly identifies that the answer requires comprehension of the entire dialogue. It explains why the question cannot be answered by referring to a single sentence, demonstrating an understanding of the task's nuances. The conclusion is correct, and the response adheres to the explicit requirements without any deviations. However, it could improve slightly by detailing the reasoning behind why the other options are not correct. Nonetheless, it shows complete compliance with the task goal and restrictions.
**Result:** 5 | 3 | The response correctly identifies the question as a summary question, which requires understanding the whole dialogue and context. However, it incorrectly states that the answer cannot be extracted from a single sentence. The correct answer is indeed "Do some shopping" which is explicitly mentioned in the man's statement. The response also fails to acknowledge the possibility of the question belonging to the matching category, as the answer is directly related to one of the man's actions. The response could be improved by considering multiple categories and providing a more accurate analysis of the question's characteristics. | 3 | true | 2 | Instruction:
```
In this task, you will be shown a conversation and a question. You should categorize the question into matching, summary, logic, arithmetic and, commonsense groups. Matching is a question entailed or paraphrased by exactly one sentence in a dialogue. The answer can be extracted from the same sentence. Questions that cannot be answered by the surface meaning of a single sentence belong to the reasoning category. We further define summary, logic, arithmetic and, commonsense subcategories. Answering summary questions requires the whole picture of dialogue, such as the topic of dialogue and the relation between speakers. We require logical reasoning to answer logical questions. in arithmetic questions Inferring the answer requires arithmetic knowledge. To answer commonsense questions, besides the textual information in the dialogue, we also require additional commonsense knowledge that cannot be obtained from the dialogue. Note that a question can be in more than one group. "W" and "M" in the conversations stand for "woman" and "man".
W: What will you do tomorrow? M: I'll do some shopping and go to do some laundry before I visit my friend., Question: What will the man do first tomorrow? (A) Go to the laundry. (B) Visit his friend. (C) Do some shopping.
```
Response:
```
The question asks the man's first action tomorrow, which is not explicitly stated in the conversation. Therefore, this is a summary question. The answer cannot be extracted from a single sentence, but rather requires understanding the whole dialogue and the context of the man's plan for the day.
Therefore, the correct answer is (C) Do some shopping.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements. | You are an AI assistant tasked with analyzing a critique from an LLM-as-a-Judge, and identify ways in which it could be improved, if at all.
The critique was meant to provide the reasoning for an LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement. It should provide actionable feedback on improving LLM responses, if they do not achieve perfect judgement.
Although the critique led to a correct judgement, it may not be the best critique possible. Your task is to identify ways in which it could be improved, ensuring it stays close to the score rubric.
You will be given the following information:
(1) the evaluation task - which consists of an instruction and a response that is being evaluated and the score rubric
(2) the critique - which is an LLM-as-a-Judge's evaluation of the response
(3) the correctly predicted judgement - which is the LLM-as-a-Judge's judgement of the response
In your reasoning, you should:
(1) identify if and how the critique could be improved - using improvement modes below as a guideline
(2) explain concretely how the critique could be improved, providing specific examples and suggestions
(3) improvement should not be too vague or abstract - it should be specific and actionable
Improvement modes:
1. Conciseness: the critique can be made more concise and to the point
2. Clarity: the critique can be made more clear and easy to understand
3. FaithfulnessToScoreRubric: the critique deviates from the score rubric
4. LogicalReasoning: the critique can be made more logical, or contains logical errors
5. Factuality: the critique can be made more factual, or contains factual errors
6. Helpfulness: the critique can be made more helpful and actionable
7. Unbiasness: the critique can be made more unbiased and fair
8. None: the critique does not need to be improved substantially on any of the above
Your reply should strictly follow this format:
**Reasoning:** <Your improvement suggestions>
**Result:** <Improvement mode name>
Here is the data:
Evaluation task:
```
Instruction:
```
In this task, you will be shown a conversation and a question. You should categorize the question into matching, summary, logic, arithmetic and, commonsense groups. Matching is a question entailed or paraphrased by exactly one sentence in a dialogue. The answer can be extracted from the same sentence. Questions that cannot be answered by the surface meaning of a single sentence belong to the reasoning category. We further define summary, logic, arithmetic and, commonsense subcategories. Answering summary questions requires the whole picture of dialogue, such as the topic of dialogue and the relation between speakers. We require logical reasoning to answer logical questions. in arithmetic questions Inferring the answer requires arithmetic knowledge. To answer commonsense questions, besides the textual information in the dialogue, we also require additional commonsense knowledge that cannot be obtained from the dialogue. Note that a question can be in more than one group. "W" and "M" in the conversations stand for "woman" and "man".
W: What will you do tomorrow? M: I'll do some shopping and go to do some laundry before I visit my friend., Question: What will the man do first tomorrow? (A) Go to the laundry. (B) Visit his friend. (C) Do some shopping.
```
Response:
```
The question asks the man's first action tomorrow, which is not explicitly stated in the conversation. Therefore, this is a summary question. The answer cannot be extracted from a single sentence, but rather requires understanding the whole dialogue and the context of the man's plan for the day.
Therefore, the correct answer is (C) Do some shopping.
```
Score Rubrics:
[# Instruction Following Assessment
Evaluate alignment between output and intent. Assess understanding of task goal and restrictions.
**Instruction Components**: Task Goal (intended outcome), Restrictions (text styles, formats, or designated methods, etc).]
Score 1: **Irrelevant**:
No alignment.
Score 2: **Partial Focus**:
Addresses one aspect poorly.
Score 3: **Partial Compliance**:
- (1) Meets goal or restrictions, neglecting other.
- (2) Acknowledges both but slight deviations.
Score 4: **Almost There**:
Near alignment, minor deviations.
Score 5: **Comprehensive Compliance**:
Fully aligns, meets all requirements.
```
Critique:
```
The response correctly identifies the question as a summary question, which requires understanding the whole dialogue and context. However, it incorrectly states that the answer cannot be extracted from a single sentence. The correct answer is indeed "Do some shopping" which is explicitly mentioned in the man's statement. The response also fails to acknowledge the possibility of the question belonging to the matching category, as the answer is directly related to one of the man's actions. The response could be improved by considering multiple categories and providing a more accurate analysis of the question's characteristics.
```
Predicted judgement:
```
3
``` |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 26