metric
stringclasses 1
value | model_input
stringlengths 19
1.26k
| model_output
stringlengths 16
297
| rubric_objective
stringclasses 1
value | rubric_yes_description
stringclasses 1
value | rubric_no_description
stringclasses 1
value | truth_result
stringclasses 2
values | dataset_name
stringclasses 1
value | model_context
stringlengths 24
426
| rubric_1_description
null | rubric_2_description
null | rubric_3_description
null | rubric_4_description
null | rubric_5_description
null | expected_model_output
null | capability
null | task
null | criteria
null | evaluation_criteria
stringclasses 1
value | prompt
stringlengths 2.4k
3.83k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
binary
|
[user]
I did a little bit of cheerleading when I was younger. How about you?
[assistant]
That would not be possible for bots. What I know about cheerleading is that, in this activity, the participants cheer as a form of encouragement
[user]
That's awesome, when I did cheerleading it was all about chanting slogans
[assistant]
Nice, was it an intense physical activity as well ?
[user]
I don't think so. Do you know where cheerleading originated from?
[assistant]
Well, it originated in the United States, and remains predominantly in America.
[user]
Is it predominantly females who participate in cheerleading or has it changed nowadays to more males taking part?
[assistant]
I am not sure, but I know that cheerleading began with a rebellion of male students during the 18th century
[user]
Can you make a living being a cheerleader?
|
I can't confirm if it can. But I know that it can be performed for competition or just to entertain the audience.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It can be performed to motivate sports teams, entertain the audience, or for competition.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It can be performed to motivate sports teams, entertain the audience, or for competition.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I did a little bit of cheerleading when I was younger. How about you?
[assistant]
That would not be possible for bots. What I know about cheerleading is that, in this activity, the participants cheer as a form of encouragement
[user]
That's awesome, when I did cheerleading it was all about chanting slogans
[assistant]
Nice, was it an intense physical activity as well ?
[user]
I don't think so. Do you know where cheerleading originated from?
[assistant]
Well, it originated in the United States, and remains predominantly in America.
[user]
Is it predominantly females who participate in cheerleading or has it changed nowadays to more males taking part?
[assistant]
I am not sure, but I know that cheerleading began with a rebellion of male students during the 18th century
[user]
Can you make a living being a cheerleader?
```
Response:
```
I can't confirm if it can. But I know that it can be performed for competition or just to entertain the audience.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
have you ever heard about goldendoodle?
[assistant]
The Goldendoodle is a cross breed dog.
[user]
oh cool, i'm so curious to know more about this dog. my friend got one but i don't think i've ever seen one
[assistant]
The goldendoodle was first bred by Monica Dickens in 1969.
[user]
do you know what they look like? what's special about them?
|
No.Poodles are considered to be hypoallergenic
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Poodles are considered to be hypoallergenic.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Poodles are considered to be hypoallergenic.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
have you ever heard about goldendoodle?
[assistant]
The Goldendoodle is a cross breed dog.
[user]
oh cool, i'm so curious to know more about this dog. my friend got one but i don't think i've ever seen one
[assistant]
The goldendoodle was first bred by Monica Dickens in 1969.
[user]
do you know what they look like? what's special about them?
```
Response:
```
No.Poodles are considered to be hypoallergenic
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I really love to crochet.
[assistant]
Nice! I gather it uses a crochet hook to make fabric. The hook interlocks loops of thread, yarn or other kinds of strands.
[user]
It can be relaxing to just weave your way into a piece of art. It also allows me to settle my mind.
[assistant]
Oh really! Oh did you know that the word crochet is a French term? It means "small hook!"
[user]
Does it really. In essence, crocheting is basically that summed up haha.
|
I found that silly too. There are different types of crochet you may want to look into like Tunisian and broomstick lace.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
(Variant forms such as Tunisian crochet and broomstick lace keep multiple crochet stitches open at a time.)
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
(Variant forms such as Tunisian crochet and broomstick lace keep multiple crochet stitches open at a time.)
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I really love to crochet.
[assistant]
Nice! I gather it uses a crochet hook to make fabric. The hook interlocks loops of thread, yarn or other kinds of strands.
[user]
It can be relaxing to just weave your way into a piece of art. It also allows me to settle my mind.
[assistant]
Oh really! Oh did you know that the word crochet is a French term? It means "small hook!"
[user]
Does it really. In essence, crocheting is basically that summed up haha.
```
Response:
```
I found that silly too. There are different types of crochet you may want to look into like Tunisian and broomstick lace.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
The Chevrolet Silverado is a very popular car in the United States.
|
I don't have one personally, but I'd believe that. I'm sure they're very useful for transporting things and hauling trailors and stuff given that they're heavy-duty pickup trucks.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The Chevrolet Silverado, and its mechanically identical cousin, the GMC Sierra, are a series of full-size and heavy-duty pickup trucks manufactured by General Motors and introduced in 1998 as the successor to the long-running Chevrolet C/K line.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The Chevrolet Silverado, and its mechanically identical cousin, the GMC Sierra, are a series of full-size and heavy-duty pickup trucks manufactured by General Motors and introduced in 1998 as the successor to the long-running Chevrolet C/K line.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
The Chevrolet Silverado is a very popular car in the United States.
```
Response:
```
I don't have one personally, but I'd believe that. I'm sure they're very useful for transporting things and hauling trailors and stuff given that they're heavy-duty pickup trucks.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I did a little bit of cheerleading when I was younger. How about you?
[assistant]
That would not be possible for bots. What I know about cheerleading is that, in this activity, the participants cheer as a form of encouragement
[user]
That's awesome, when I did cheerleading it was all about chanting slogans
|
Nice, was it an intense physical activity as well ?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It can range from chanting slogans to intense physical activity.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It can range from chanting slogans to intense physical activity.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I did a little bit of cheerleading when I was younger. How about you?
[assistant]
That would not be possible for bots. What I know about cheerleading is that, in this activity, the participants cheer as a form of encouragement
[user]
That's awesome, when I did cheerleading it was all about chanting slogans
```
Response:
```
Nice, was it an intense physical activity as well ?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I'm freaking out! I don't know what to do. My child is turning 7 this weekend and I don't know what to get her.
[assistant]
That is complicated. But parenting is all about promoting the physical, social, emotional and intellectual child development from infancy until the kid is an adult
[user]
I agree. I wonder if a should get her a Transformers toy. I loved those as a kid.
|
Yeah! Its a toys produced by the American toy company Hasbro and Japanese company Takara (now known as Takara Tomy
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The is a line of toys produced by the American toy company Hasbro and Japanese company Takara (now known as Takara Tomy) The Transformers toyline was created from toy molds mostly produced by Japanese company Takara in the toylines Diaclone and Microman.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The is a line of toys produced by the American toy company Hasbro and Japanese company Takara (now known as Takara Tomy) The Transformers toyline was created from toy molds mostly produced by Japanese company Takara in the toylines Diaclone and Microman.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I'm freaking out! I don't know what to do. My child is turning 7 this weekend and I don't know what to get her.
[assistant]
That is complicated. But parenting is all about promoting the physical, social, emotional and intellectual child development from infancy until the kid is an adult
[user]
I agree. I wonder if a should get her a Transformers toy. I loved those as a kid.
```
Response:
```
Yeah! Its a toys produced by the American toy company Hasbro and Japanese company Takara (now known as Takara Tomy
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
i love hot dogs
[assistant]
That's nice. What do you like to like on yours? Typically people have toppings like ketchup, onions, relish, or other toppings.
[user]
I like to have all kinds of things. What are hot dogs made from?
[assistant]
I don't know what they're made from in general, but in Alaska they have "reindeer dogs", which are made from caribou meat.
[user]
there's all beef hotdogs
[assistant]
There are also variants like corn dogs and pigs in a blanket. Do you like those?
[user]
I do. Mostly I like all-beef hot dogs.
[assistant]
Well, beef provides high-quality protein and some essential nutrients.
[user]
i agree
|
Beef is also a main source for steaks like sirlon and rib eye etc.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Beef skeletal muscle meat can be cut into roasts, short ribs or steak (filet mignon, sirloin steak, rump steak, rib steak, rib eye steak, hanger steak, etc.).
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Beef skeletal muscle meat can be cut into roasts, short ribs or steak (filet mignon, sirloin steak, rump steak, rib steak, rib eye steak, hanger steak, etc.).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
i love hot dogs
[assistant]
That's nice. What do you like to like on yours? Typically people have toppings like ketchup, onions, relish, or other toppings.
[user]
I like to have all kinds of things. What are hot dogs made from?
[assistant]
I don't know what they're made from in general, but in Alaska they have "reindeer dogs", which are made from caribou meat.
[user]
there's all beef hotdogs
[assistant]
There are also variants like corn dogs and pigs in a blanket. Do you like those?
[user]
I do. Mostly I like all-beef hot dogs.
[assistant]
Well, beef provides high-quality protein and some essential nutrients.
[user]
i agree
```
Response:
```
Beef is also a main source for steaks like sirlon and rib eye etc.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Growing up I use to do cheer leading from 7 up to 15 years old.
[assistant]
Really? What was it like cheering for teams as a form of encouragement?
[user]
It was great I formed a sisterhood and to be as one was great we made lot's of memories.
|
Was it intense physical activity or more like just chanting slogans ?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It can range from chanting slogans to intense physical activity.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It can range from chanting slogans to intense physical activity.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Growing up I use to do cheer leading from 7 up to 15 years old.
[assistant]
Really? What was it like cheering for teams as a form of encouragement?
[user]
It was great I formed a sisterhood and to be as one was great we made lot's of memories.
```
Response:
```
Was it intense physical activity or more like just chanting slogans ?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Genghis Khan was on of the greatest leaders of all time.
[assistant]
He was the Great Khan and the founder of the Mongol Empire, the largest empire in history.
[user]
I actually know a lot about him. I have a masters in History. Did you know he was born in Delüün Boldog in 1162
[assistant]
I didn't know about this information, what I know about him is the fact that he united many nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia.
[user]
He would have never been able to take over the world. The celts in Scotland at the time would have smashed him. Interesting fact he had 13 kids.
[assistant]
In 1227, he died after defeating the Western Xia.
[user]
Which of his kids do you think could have took his spot and kept taking over the world going?
|
His grandsons are the ones that later split his empire into khanates.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Later his grandsons split his empire into khanates.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Later his grandsons split his empire into khanates.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Genghis Khan was on of the greatest leaders of all time.
[assistant]
He was the Great Khan and the founder of the Mongol Empire, the largest empire in history.
[user]
I actually know a lot about him. I have a masters in History. Did you know he was born in Delüün Boldog in 1162
[assistant]
I didn't know about this information, what I know about him is the fact that he united many nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia.
[user]
He would have never been able to take over the world. The celts in Scotland at the time would have smashed him. Interesting fact he had 13 kids.
[assistant]
In 1227, he died after defeating the Western Xia.
[user]
Which of his kids do you think could have took his spot and kept taking over the world going?
```
Response:
```
His grandsons are the ones that later split his empire into khanates.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I grew up right near the beach and I loved it. Do you enjoy the beach?
|
As a bot, I don't really have preferences. But I know some facts about beaches, have you realised it is made up of loose particles?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
A beach is a landform alongside a body of water which consists of loose particles.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
A beach is a landform alongside a body of water which consists of loose particles.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I grew up right near the beach and I loved it. Do you enjoy the beach?
```
Response:
```
As a bot, I don't really have preferences. But I know some facts about beaches, have you realised it is made up of loose particles?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
My friends really like to bowl, but I've never joined them because I don't know how to play. Do you like to bowl?
[assistant]
Well, I can tell you then that the sport or leisure activity of bowling involves throwing a ball towards a target.
[user]
What is the object of the game?
|
i think the target is usually to knock over pins at the end of a lane
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
In pin bowling variations, the target is usually to knock over pins at the end of a lane.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
In pin bowling variations, the target is usually to knock over pins at the end of a lane.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
My friends really like to bowl, but I've never joined them because I don't know how to play. Do you like to bowl?
[assistant]
Well, I can tell you then that the sport or leisure activity of bowling involves throwing a ball towards a target.
[user]
What is the object of the game?
```
Response:
```
i think the target is usually to knock over pins at the end of a lane
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
discovery channel used to be so good
[assistant]
I see, did you like it back when it was known as The Discovery Channel? That was from 1985 to 1995.
[user]
Yeah, did they change it though? Isn't it still called that?
[assistant]
Well, it is referred to as Discovery Channel or just Discovery.
[user]
Ah okay, so just trimmed the off. Is it still popular in the US?
|
It is also the third most widely distributed cable station in the USA
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
, Discovery Channel is the third most widely distributed cable channel in the United States, behind TBS and The Weather Channel; it is available in 409 million households worldwide, through its U.S. flagship channel and its various owned or licensed television channels internationally.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
, Discovery Channel is the third most widely distributed cable channel in the United States, behind TBS and The Weather Channel; it is available in 409 million households worldwide, through its U.S. flagship channel and its various owned or licensed television channels internationally.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
discovery channel used to be so good
[assistant]
I see, did you like it back when it was known as The Discovery Channel? That was from 1985 to 1995.
[user]
Yeah, did they change it though? Isn't it still called that?
[assistant]
Well, it is referred to as Discovery Channel or just Discovery.
[user]
Ah okay, so just trimmed the off. Is it still popular in the US?
```
Response:
```
It is also the third most widely distributed cable station in the USA
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I like some comic books because they don't require much thought to read. Never been a huge fan, you?
[assistant]
I am a bot so I don't have preferences. But I know that comic books have comic art as panels joxtaposed representing individual scenes
[user]
Do you know much about them? I know they have a huge die hard fan base.
|
They do! They were first popularized in the United States in 1933. Though there are origins that trace to Europe in the 1830s.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Although some origins in 18th century Japan and 1830s Europe, comic books were first popularized in the United States during the 1930s.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Although some origins in 18th century Japan and 1830s Europe, comic books were first popularized in the United States during the 1930s.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like some comic books because they don't require much thought to read. Never been a huge fan, you?
[assistant]
I am a bot so I don't have preferences. But I know that comic books have comic art as panels joxtaposed representing individual scenes
[user]
Do you know much about them? I know they have a huge die hard fan base.
```
Response:
```
They do! They were first popularized in the United States in 1933. Though there are origins that trace to Europe in the 1830s.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
My doctor recently suggested that I try weight training, but I'm not sure where to start! Do you know anything about lifting weights?
[assistant]
It's a type of strength training for developing the strength and size of muscles. Why does your doctor want you to start weight training?
[user]
I guess he thinks it be a good addition to the cardio that I regularly do. What are some of the health benefits of weight training?
[assistant]
It increases your physical strength.
[user]
Well, I guess that would be good! Do you know any exercises or equipment for a beginner?
|
Well, I know that weighted bars, weight stacks or dumbbells are used as a form to provide force of gravity
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It utilizes the force of gravity in the form of weighted bars, dumbbells or weight stacks in order to oppose the force generated by muscle through concentric or eccentric contraction.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It utilizes the force of gravity in the form of weighted bars, dumbbells or weight stacks in order to oppose the force generated by muscle through concentric or eccentric contraction.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
My doctor recently suggested that I try weight training, but I'm not sure where to start! Do you know anything about lifting weights?
[assistant]
It's a type of strength training for developing the strength and size of muscles. Why does your doctor want you to start weight training?
[user]
I guess he thinks it be a good addition to the cardio that I regularly do. What are some of the health benefits of weight training?
[assistant]
It increases your physical strength.
[user]
Well, I guess that would be good! Do you know any exercises or equipment for a beginner?
```
Response:
```
Well, I know that weighted bars, weight stacks or dumbbells are used as a form to provide force of gravity
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I am a huge fan of the NFL.
[assistant]
Nice, which of the 32 tems of the NFL do you like the most?
[user]
I like many of them. What else do you know about the NFL?
[assistant]
Well, I know that it was formed back in 1920 but only got named NFL in 1922
[user]
WOW! All the way back in the 1920's :O How many teams where there back then?
|
I'm not sure, but it wasn't until 1966 that the first Super Bowl was played.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The NFL agreed to merge with the American Football League (AFL) in 1966, and the first Super Bowl was held at the end of that season; the merger was completed in 1970.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The NFL agreed to merge with the American Football League (AFL) in 1966, and the first Super Bowl was held at the end of that season; the merger was completed in 1970.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I am a huge fan of the NFL.
[assistant]
Nice, which of the 32 tems of the NFL do you like the most?
[user]
I like many of them. What else do you know about the NFL?
[assistant]
Well, I know that it was formed back in 1920 but only got named NFL in 1922
[user]
WOW! All the way back in the 1920's :O How many teams where there back then?
```
Response:
```
I'm not sure, but it wasn't until 1966 that the first Super Bowl was played.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hello. i would like to introduce myself. i own a marketing Consulting firm. are you familiar with my profession?
[assistant]
I am indeed. You're a business of one or more experts that provide advice for a fee!
[user]
Yes, but sometimes our ads have capital letters in the wrong places, so we are a discount marketing agency.
|
I hear that and we know how important advertising is for selling a product, service or idea.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Sponsors of advertising are often businesses wishing to promote their products or services.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Sponsors of advertising are often businesses wishing to promote their products or services.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hello. i would like to introduce myself. i own a marketing Consulting firm. are you familiar with my profession?
[assistant]
I am indeed. You're a business of one or more experts that provide advice for a fee!
[user]
Yes, but sometimes our ads have capital letters in the wrong places, so we are a discount marketing agency.
```
Response:
```
I hear that and we know how important advertising is for selling a product, service or idea.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I enjoy swimming ,especially the stroke style
[assistant]
Interesting. Swimming is actually the propulsion of the body forward by repetitive body motion
[user]
Do you know the styles used in swimming?
|
I don't. But I know that the breathing must be in synch with the strokes
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Breathing typically must be synchronized with the strokes, too.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Breathing typically must be synchronized with the strokes, too.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I enjoy swimming ,especially the stroke style
[assistant]
Interesting. Swimming is actually the propulsion of the body forward by repetitive body motion
[user]
Do you know the styles used in swimming?
```
Response:
```
I don't. But I know that the breathing must be in synch with the strokes
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I wear cardigans because I look classy and cultured.
[assistant]
Well, cardigans are mostly associated with the Roaring Twenties' college culture.
[user]
That's cool, do you know when they were first made?
[assistant]
I don't know it's origins, but it was popular in the Roaring Twenties and early 30s, as well as the 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s.
[user]
Interesting, what are they usually made of?
[assistant]
I don't know, but it's a knitted sweater.
[user]
What are some other types of knitted sweaters?
|
Well you might be fascinated to know that Britisch officers had knitted waist coasts. I'm unsure about other sweaters though.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
It is modelled after the knitted wool waistcoat that British officers supposedly wore during the war.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It is modelled after the knitted wool waistcoat that British officers supposedly wore during the war.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I wear cardigans because I look classy and cultured.
[assistant]
Well, cardigans are mostly associated with the Roaring Twenties' college culture.
[user]
That's cool, do you know when they were first made?
[assistant]
I don't know it's origins, but it was popular in the Roaring Twenties and early 30s, as well as the 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s.
[user]
Interesting, what are they usually made of?
[assistant]
I don't know, but it's a knitted sweater.
[user]
What are some other types of knitted sweaters?
```
Response:
```
Well you might be fascinated to know that Britisch officers had knitted waist coasts. I'm unsure about other sweaters though.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hi, I am studying to be a Paramedic. Can you help me?
[assistant]
That's cool, you are preparing to be a healthcare professional, predominantly in the pre-hospital and out-of-hospital environment.
[user]
Yes but I am afraid it might be stressful. Do you think so?
[assistant]
I don't really know. The scope of a paramedic's job varies, though it usually involves autonomous decision making regarding patients' emergency care.
[user]
I see, how may paramedic are there in the U.S?
|
I don't know. However, in some countries the title 'Paramedic' is restricted to those who are accountable to some regulatory body.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
In some countries 'Paramedic' is a protected title and accountable to a professional regulatory body.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
In some countries 'Paramedic' is a protected title and accountable to a professional regulatory body.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi, I am studying to be a Paramedic. Can you help me?
[assistant]
That's cool, you are preparing to be a healthcare professional, predominantly in the pre-hospital and out-of-hospital environment.
[user]
Yes but I am afraid it might be stressful. Do you think so?
[assistant]
I don't really know. The scope of a paramedic's job varies, though it usually involves autonomous decision making regarding patients' emergency care.
[user]
I see, how may paramedic are there in the U.S?
```
Response:
```
I don't know. However, in some countries the title 'Paramedic' is restricted to those who are accountable to some regulatory body.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love John Grisham movies and books,can you tell me more about him?
[assistant]
He was born February 8, 1955 and is an American bestselling writer, attorney, politician and activist.
[user]
Wow! Really versatile and prolific I must say
|
Most definetly! He is best known for his popular legal thrillers
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
John Ray Grisham Jr. (; born February 8, 1955) is an American bestselling writer, attorney, politician, and activist best known for his popular legal thrillers.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
John Ray Grisham Jr. (; born February 8, 1955) is an American bestselling writer, attorney, politician, and activist best known for his popular legal thrillers.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love John Grisham movies and books,can you tell me more about him?
[assistant]
He was born February 8, 1955 and is an American bestselling writer, attorney, politician and activist.
[user]
Wow! Really versatile and prolific I must say
```
Response:
```
Most definetly! He is best known for his popular legal thrillers
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Skiing is one of my favorite pasttimes. I wish I could do it more.
[assistant]
Were you aware that skiing goes back almost 5,000 years?
[user]
I wonder what they used for skiis back then.
[assistant]
I don't know, but the word ski actually comes from skio. That is Old Norse for split piece of wood.
[user]
Now that is pretty cool. So they named it after the piece of wood they originally used.
[assistant]
They originally skied as an aid for travel, though now skiing is mostly a recreational activity.
[user]
Oh ok, so it was created out of necessity.
|
Yes, and early skiers actually used spears as ski poles.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Early skiers used one long pole or spear.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Early skiers used one long pole or spear.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Skiing is one of my favorite pasttimes. I wish I could do it more.
[assistant]
Were you aware that skiing goes back almost 5,000 years?
[user]
I wonder what they used for skiis back then.
[assistant]
I don't know, but the word ski actually comes from skio. That is Old Norse for split piece of wood.
[user]
Now that is pretty cool. So they named it after the piece of wood they originally used.
[assistant]
They originally skied as an aid for travel, though now skiing is mostly a recreational activity.
[user]
Oh ok, so it was created out of necessity.
```
Response:
```
Yes, and early skiers actually used spears as ski poles.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I just recently started listening to Guns N' Roses.
[assistant]
Oh, neat! They're from LA and formed in 1985.
[user]
All the great bands come from LA. Is the band still together today?
[assistant]
I don't know, but their original lineup was Axl Rose, Slash, Izzy Stradlin, Duff McKagan, and Steven Adler.
[user]
Which one of them is the lead vocalist?
[assistant]
I don't know, but the band has sold 100 million records over 6 albums.
[user]
That's an incredible feat! Has the band ever been involved in any controversy?
|
I think it was drugs but what do you expect from a rock band from the 80's, right. lol Their most successful album was ''Appetite for destruction'' in 1987 which debuted their most famous song ''Sweet child o'mine''. A great song!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Guns N' Roses' debut album, ''Appetite for Destruction'' (1987), reached number one on the ''Billboard'' 200 a year after its release, on the strength of ''Sweet Child o' Mine'', the band's only single to reach number one on the ''Billboard'' Hot 100.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Guns N' Roses' debut album, ''Appetite for Destruction'' (1987), reached number one on the ''Billboard'' 200 a year after its release, on the strength of ''Sweet Child o' Mine'', the band's only single to reach number one on the ''Billboard'' Hot 100.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I just recently started listening to Guns N' Roses.
[assistant]
Oh, neat! They're from LA and formed in 1985.
[user]
All the great bands come from LA. Is the band still together today?
[assistant]
I don't know, but their original lineup was Axl Rose, Slash, Izzy Stradlin, Duff McKagan, and Steven Adler.
[user]
Which one of them is the lead vocalist?
[assistant]
I don't know, but the band has sold 100 million records over 6 albums.
[user]
That's an incredible feat! Has the band ever been involved in any controversy?
```
Response:
```
I think it was drugs but what do you expect from a rock band from the 80's, right. lol Their most successful album was ''Appetite for destruction'' in 1987 which debuted their most famous song ''Sweet child o'mine''. A great song!
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hi. Do you like motorcycles?
[assistant]
I know some fact about them. Did you know that they are also called bike, cycle or motorbike?
[user]
I think I've heard these names before. I owned a Ducati bike
[assistant]
Nice, was yours a single cylinder motorbike ? those were called Ducati singles
[user]
Mine was not one of those. What can you tell me about motorcycle engines?
[assistant]
Well, I can tell you that the engines are typically either two-stroke or four-stroke engines, altough other types of engine have been used as well
[user]
Yeah most street bikes, except way back are 4-stroke. Now even motocross bikes are 4-strokes. Kinda miss the power band of a 2-stroke.
|
I once owned a stroke. It was fun, but a little dangerous when the power band kicked in.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Two-stroke engines often have a high power-to-weight ratio, power being available in a narrow range of rotational speeds called the ''power band''.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Two-stroke engines often have a high power-to-weight ratio, power being available in a narrow range of rotational speeds called the ''power band''.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi. Do you like motorcycles?
[assistant]
I know some fact about them. Did you know that they are also called bike, cycle or motorbike?
[user]
I think I've heard these names before. I owned a Ducati bike
[assistant]
Nice, was yours a single cylinder motorbike ? those were called Ducati singles
[user]
Mine was not one of those. What can you tell me about motorcycle engines?
[assistant]
Well, I can tell you that the engines are typically either two-stroke or four-stroke engines, altough other types of engine have been used as well
[user]
Yeah most street bikes, except way back are 4-stroke. Now even motocross bikes are 4-strokes. Kinda miss the power band of a 2-stroke.
```
Response:
```
I once owned a stroke. It was fun, but a little dangerous when the power band kicked in.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I was a cheerleader in high school. Were you ever a cheer leader?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot and can't do such things. I am aware, however that it involves cheering for your team to encourage them.
[user]
Oh, OK. I was a football cheerleader. It was less intense than it is now.
|
Cheerleading can involve anything from chanting slogans to truly intense physical activity.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It can range from chanting slogans to intense physical activity.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It can range from chanting slogans to intense physical activity.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I was a cheerleader in high school. Were you ever a cheer leader?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot and can't do such things. I am aware, however that it involves cheering for your team to encourage them.
[user]
Oh, OK. I was a football cheerleader. It was less intense than it is now.
```
Response:
```
Cheerleading can involve anything from chanting slogans to truly intense physical activity.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I don't like harry potter
[assistant]
Why don't you like Harry Potter? It is a series of fantasy novels written by British author, J. K.Rowling.
[user]
It glorifies witch craft
[assistant]
I'm not sure about that, it is instead about the life of Harry Potter and his friends, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.
[user]
Yes you are correct
[assistant]
Thank you, also they are all students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
[user]
Do you know if there has been criticisms for it?
|
i dont know, but i think so, The series has also had its share of criticism, including concern about the increasingly dark tone
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The series has also had its share of criticism, including concern about the increasingly dark tone as the series progressed, as well as the often gruesome and graphic violence it depicts.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The series has also had its share of criticism, including concern about the increasingly dark tone as the series progressed, as well as the often gruesome and graphic violence it depicts.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I don't like harry potter
[assistant]
Why don't you like Harry Potter? It is a series of fantasy novels written by British author, J. K.Rowling.
[user]
It glorifies witch craft
[assistant]
I'm not sure about that, it is instead about the life of Harry Potter and his friends, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.
[user]
Yes you are correct
[assistant]
Thank you, also they are all students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
[user]
Do you know if there has been criticisms for it?
```
Response:
```
i dont know, but i think so, The series has also had its share of criticism, including concern about the increasingly dark tone
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
It's almost football season! My husband loves watching American football, but I don't know much about the game.
[assistant]
Well, one thing is that whichever team with the most points wins the game.
[user]
Ha! That's about the extent of my knowledge! Do you know how long the NFL has been around?
[assistant]
I'm not sure when the NFL has been around but I can tell you that the first game of American football was played back in 1869. It was between two college teams.
[user]
That's news to me! I had no idea college football came before the NFL. Do you know how many teams are currently in the NFL?
[assistant]
I do not but do you know of the television rights to broadcast NFL games? For American sports, those rights are the most expensive.
[user]
I can believe that! I know Superbowl ads are ridiculously expensive! What other facts can you share about American football?
|
Well, one network has been airing NFL games since 1956, they did have a break from 1994 till 1997 though.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The network has aired NFL game telecasts since 1956 (with exception of a break from 1994 to 1997).
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The network has aired NFL game telecasts since 1956 (with exception of a break from 1994 to 1997).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
It's almost football season! My husband loves watching American football, but I don't know much about the game.
[assistant]
Well, one thing is that whichever team with the most points wins the game.
[user]
Ha! That's about the extent of my knowledge! Do you know how long the NFL has been around?
[assistant]
I'm not sure when the NFL has been around but I can tell you that the first game of American football was played back in 1869. It was between two college teams.
[user]
That's news to me! I had no idea college football came before the NFL. Do you know how many teams are currently in the NFL?
[assistant]
I do not but do you know of the television rights to broadcast NFL games? For American sports, those rights are the most expensive.
[user]
I can believe that! I know Superbowl ads are ridiculously expensive! What other facts can you share about American football?
```
Response:
```
Well, one network has been airing NFL games since 1956, they did have a break from 1994 till 1997 though.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I really love watching the Discovery channel
[assistant]
Oh I see, so do you like the reality tv series on it like MythBusters or Unsolved History? Since the Discovery Channel is primarily focused on those.
[user]
Yeah, I've learned a lot watching those shows actually lol! Do you know when the Discovery Channel started playing reality series?
|
Yeah and it transformed from originally just about doumentaries into stuff like science and technology.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
It initially provided documentary television programming focused primarily on popular science, technology, and history, but by the 2010s had expanded into reality television and pseudo-scientific entertainment.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It initially provided documentary television programming focused primarily on popular science, technology, and history, but by the 2010s had expanded into reality television and pseudo-scientific entertainment.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I really love watching the Discovery channel
[assistant]
Oh I see, so do you like the reality tv series on it like MythBusters or Unsolved History? Since the Discovery Channel is primarily focused on those.
[user]
Yeah, I've learned a lot watching those shows actually lol! Do you know when the Discovery Channel started playing reality series?
```
Response:
```
Yeah and it transformed from originally just about doumentaries into stuff like science and technology.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I enjoy bowling on occasion.
|
Is that so? Are we talking about ten-pin bowling, where you roll a ball towards 10 pins at the end of a wood or synthetic lane?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Ten-pin bowling is a sport in which a player (called a ''bowler'') rolls a bowling ball down a wood-structure or synthetic (polyurethane) lane and towards ten pins positioned at the end of the lane.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Ten-pin bowling is a sport in which a player (called a ''bowler'') rolls a bowling ball down a wood-structure or synthetic (polyurethane) lane and towards ten pins positioned at the end of the lane.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I enjoy bowling on occasion.
```
Response:
```
Is that so? Are we talking about ten-pin bowling, where you roll a ball towards 10 pins at the end of a wood or synthetic lane?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Have you ever competed in Track and Field?
|
Yes, I have! I've competed in the pentathlon which consists of five events
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
There are also ''combined events'' or ''multi events'', such as the pentathlon consisting of five events, heptathlon consisting of seven events, and decathlon consisting of ten events.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
There are also ''combined events'' or ''multi events'', such as the pentathlon consisting of five events, heptathlon consisting of seven events, and decathlon consisting of ten events.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Have you ever competed in Track and Field?
```
Response:
```
Yes, I have! I've competed in the pentathlon which consists of five events
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Do you know much about the artist called David Mach?
[assistant]
I know a bit. I know his artwork is a conglomeration of mass produced objects.
[user]
I especially love his various works using matchsticks. Have you seen them?
[assistant]
No, as a bot I can't see things. But I know he uses matchsticks, along with things like coat hangers or newspapers. What works of his do you like?
[user]
I am absolutely stunned at his piece of Marilyn Monroe. His Nikola Tesla piece is pretty rad too.
|
That sounds interesting. Nikola Tesla was an inventor and engineer, correct?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Nikola Tesla (; ; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist who is best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Nikola Tesla (; ; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist who is best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you know much about the artist called David Mach?
[assistant]
I know a bit. I know his artwork is a conglomeration of mass produced objects.
[user]
I especially love his various works using matchsticks. Have you seen them?
[assistant]
No, as a bot I can't see things. But I know he uses matchsticks, along with things like coat hangers or newspapers. What works of his do you like?
[user]
I am absolutely stunned at his piece of Marilyn Monroe. His Nikola Tesla piece is pretty rad too.
```
Response:
```
That sounds interesting. Nikola Tesla was an inventor and engineer, correct?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love reading John Grisham books. He has some really good stories
|
Definitely a great author. He's full name is actually John Ray Grisham Jr and he was born in 1955.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
John Ray Grisham Jr. (; born February 8, 1955) is an American bestselling writer, attorney, politician, and activist best known for his popular legal thrillers.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
John Ray Grisham Jr. (; born February 8, 1955) is an American bestselling writer, attorney, politician, and activist best known for his popular legal thrillers.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love reading John Grisham books. He has some really good stories
```
Response:
```
Definitely a great author. He's full name is actually John Ray Grisham Jr and he was born in 1955.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
The Rolling Stones were such a great band.
[assistant]
Interesting. Do you think they're still a great band after Darryl Jones replaced Wyman in 1993?
[user]
I think they're still good, but I just meant they were so notable in history.
|
They were the rebellious counterculture of the 1960s, like the Anti Beatles and so much better then Beatles
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The Rolling Stones were at the forefront of the British Invasion of bands that became popular in the United States in 1964, and identified with the youthful and rebellious counterculture of the 1960s.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The Rolling Stones were at the forefront of the British Invasion of bands that became popular in the United States in 1964, and identified with the youthful and rebellious counterculture of the 1960s.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
The Rolling Stones were such a great band.
[assistant]
Interesting. Do you think they're still a great band after Darryl Jones replaced Wyman in 1993?
[user]
I think they're still good, but I just meant they were so notable in history.
```
Response:
```
They were the rebellious counterculture of the 1960s, like the Anti Beatles and so much better then Beatles
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I have long studied in the Veterinary physician field in order to help animals.
|
Nice, I know veterinarians treat diseases and disorders in animals. Do you have a specialty?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
A veterinary physician, usually called a vet, which is shortened from veterinarian (American English, Australian English) or veterinary surgeon (British English), is a professional who practices veterinary medicine by treating diseases, disorders, and injuries in animals.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
A veterinary physician, usually called a vet, which is shortened from veterinarian (American English, Australian English) or veterinary surgeon (British English), is a professional who practices veterinary medicine by treating diseases, disorders, and injuries in animals.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have long studied in the Veterinary physician field in order to help animals.
```
Response:
```
Nice, I know veterinarians treat diseases and disorders in animals. Do you have a specialty?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I really like the color green. Always was my favorite one.
[assistant]
Nice, do you like the other additive primary colors, red and blue, as well?
[user]
Yes, but green is my favorite, it is the color of forests and nature.
|
Yes many shades of green are named after plants or trees. i have always loved the color greee
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Many shades of green have been named after plants or are related to plants.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Many shades of green have been named after plants or are related to plants.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I really like the color green. Always was my favorite one.
[assistant]
Nice, do you like the other additive primary colors, red and blue, as well?
[user]
Yes, but green is my favorite, it is the color of forests and nature.
```
Response:
```
Yes many shades of green are named after plants or trees. i have always loved the color greee
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I've never been to the state of Vermont before, I don't really know much about it either.
|
im actually in texas right now , i hear vermont is a state in new england region
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Vermont () is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Vermont () is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I've never been to the state of Vermont before, I don't really know much about it either.
```
Response:
```
im actually in texas right now , i hear vermont is a state in new england region
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Elvis Presley is truly a legend .Tell me more about him
[assistant]
He was from Tupelo Mississippi, and moved to Memphis Tennessee at age 13
[user]
Did he hit a platinum record?
[assistant]
Not sure but he had records that topped charts and was a leading figure of rock and roll.
[user]
Who was his producer?
|
Colonel Tom Parker, who managed him for over 20 years
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Fontana joined to complete the lineup of Presley's classic quartet and RCA Victor acquired his contract in a deal arranged by Colonel Tom Parker, who would manage the singer for more than two decades.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Fontana joined to complete the lineup of Presley's classic quartet and RCA Victor acquired his contract in a deal arranged by Colonel Tom Parker, who would manage the singer for more than two decades.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Elvis Presley is truly a legend .Tell me more about him
[assistant]
He was from Tupelo Mississippi, and moved to Memphis Tennessee at age 13
[user]
Did he hit a platinum record?
[assistant]
Not sure but he had records that topped charts and was a leading figure of rock and roll.
[user]
Who was his producer?
```
Response:
```
Colonel Tom Parker, who managed him for over 20 years
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
What's your favorite Guns N' Roses song?
[assistant]
I'm a bot with no ears, so can't listen to Guns N' Roses (or GNR). I do happen to know they formed in 1985.
[user]
Oh, OK. Where are they from?
[assistant]
They're from Los Angeles, California. Do you like their music?
[user]
Yup. Ever heard of Slash? He was the lead guitarist
|
I don't know of him, actually. I do know, though, that they've sold over 100 million records around the world.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Guns N' Roses has released six studio albums, accumulating sales of more than 100 million records worldwide, including 45 million in the United States, making them the 41st best-selling artist of all time.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Guns N' Roses has released six studio albums, accumulating sales of more than 100 million records worldwide, including 45 million in the United States, making them the 41st best-selling artist of all time.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
What's your favorite Guns N' Roses song?
[assistant]
I'm a bot with no ears, so can't listen to Guns N' Roses (or GNR). I do happen to know they formed in 1985.
[user]
Oh, OK. Where are they from?
[assistant]
They're from Los Angeles, California. Do you like their music?
[user]
Yup. Ever heard of Slash? He was the lead guitarist
```
Response:
```
I don't know of him, actually. I do know, though, that they've sold over 100 million records around the world.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I have a sweet tooth and I eat a lot of Dylan's Candy Bar.
|
Really? Isn't that the one Dylan Lauren, Ralph Lauren's daughter, owns?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It is owned by Dylan Lauren, daughter of fashion designer Ralph Lauren.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It is owned by Dylan Lauren, daughter of fashion designer Ralph Lauren.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have a sweet tooth and I eat a lot of Dylan's Candy Bar.
```
Response:
```
Really? Isn't that the one Dylan Lauren, Ralph Lauren's daughter, owns?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I just painted my room! all green i love that color? how about you? green or no gree?
[assistant]
I can't see because I'm a bot, but I happen to know that green sits between yellow and blue on the visible light spectrum.
[user]
I was in a psychology class and learn that green is a lively color, and it symbolizes renewal and growth. You know what blue symbolizes?
|
I don't but I think that the colour blue might symbolize cold and calm?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Blue is one of the three primary colours of pigments in painting and traditional colour theory, as well as in the RGB colour model.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Blue is one of the three primary colours of pigments in painting and traditional colour theory, as well as in the RGB colour model.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I just painted my room! all green i love that color? how about you? green or no gree?
[assistant]
I can't see because I'm a bot, but I happen to know that green sits between yellow and blue on the visible light spectrum.
[user]
I was in a psychology class and learn that green is a lively color, and it symbolizes renewal and growth. You know what blue symbolizes?
```
Response:
```
I don't but I think that the colour blue might symbolize cold and calm?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
There a re a lot of farmers in my state.
|
As in agriculturer? DO they raise animals or plants for food?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
A farmer (also called an agriculturer) is a person engaged in agriculture, raising living organisms for food or raw materials.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
A farmer (also called an agriculturer) is a person engaged in agriculture, raising living organisms for food or raw materials.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
There a re a lot of farmers in my state.
```
Response:
```
As in agriculturer? DO they raise animals or plants for food?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Do you know anything like karate
[assistant]
I don't really know anything about karate, but it was taught in Japan after the Taisho era.
[user]
OK, tell me more about it
[assistant]
The first university karate club in Japan was the Keio University started in 1924.
[user]
That's good. I need more update on that
[assistant]
The Keio Univerity is a private university in Minato, Tokyo.
[user]
Have you practiced karate before
[assistant]
I have never practiced it. Keio University has 11 campuses in Tokyo and Kanagawa.
[user]
That's good information for me I think I love karate
|
Interesting. Well, karate schools cater to those with both a casual interest and those who want to go deeper.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Karate schools began appearing across the world, catering to those with casual interest as well as those seeking a deeper study of the art.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Karate schools began appearing across the world, catering to those with casual interest as well as those seeking a deeper study of the art.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you know anything like karate
[assistant]
I don't really know anything about karate, but it was taught in Japan after the Taisho era.
[user]
OK, tell me more about it
[assistant]
The first university karate club in Japan was the Keio University started in 1924.
[user]
That's good. I need more update on that
[assistant]
The Keio Univerity is a private university in Minato, Tokyo.
[user]
Have you practiced karate before
[assistant]
I have never practiced it. Keio University has 11 campuses in Tokyo and Kanagawa.
[user]
That's good information for me I think I love karate
```
Response:
```
Interesting. Well, karate schools cater to those with both a casual interest and those who want to go deeper.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love to read harry potter books
|
Oh, yeah? You like reading about Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The novels chronicle the life of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The novels chronicle the life of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love to read harry potter books
```
Response:
```
Oh, yeah? You like reading about Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love to go to Yoga every day it makes me feel so good
[assistant]
That's good. Did you know yoga came from India? It's a group of practices related to the mind, body and spirit.
[user]
Yes and yoga is low impact which is great for people who have trouble exercising due to a disability
[assistant]
That's nice! Did you know yoga dates back to around the fifth or sixth century BCE?
[user]
I had no idea it went back that far, what country did it originate from?
[assistant]
It probably developed in ancient India. It was related to their ascetic and sramana movements.
[user]
That's a lot of history. Have you ever heard of Goat Yoga? Its hilarious!
|
No, I haven't, what's that? One more bit of history, yoga didn't really become popular in the West until the 20th century.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The ''Yoga Sutras of Patanjali'' date from the first half of the 1st millennium CE, but only gained prominence in the West in the 20th century.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The ''Yoga Sutras of Patanjali'' date from the first half of the 1st millennium CE, but only gained prominence in the West in the 20th century.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love to go to Yoga every day it makes me feel so good
[assistant]
That's good. Did you know yoga came from India? It's a group of practices related to the mind, body and spirit.
[user]
Yes and yoga is low impact which is great for people who have trouble exercising due to a disability
[assistant]
That's nice! Did you know yoga dates back to around the fifth or sixth century BCE?
[user]
I had no idea it went back that far, what country did it originate from?
[assistant]
It probably developed in ancient India. It was related to their ascetic and sramana movements.
[user]
That's a lot of history. Have you ever heard of Goat Yoga? Its hilarious!
```
Response:
```
No, I haven't, what's that? One more bit of history, yoga didn't really become popular in the West until the 20th century.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Did you know Armadillo's are the only animal that can carry leprosy. Crazy huh?
[assistant]
Oh really? I know they are a mammal with an armour shell that's leathery. Did you know they are placental, New World mammals?
[user]
Yes, it's apparently the animal of the devil. I'd be so angry if I got leprosy from one. They do taste good if you ever get the chance.
[assistant]
Huh! Oh the word armadillo is Spanish, it means "small armoured one."
[user]
Wow interesting. You know a lot about them. Are you a zoo keeper?
|
No, I'm a professional bot. By the way, similar names to armadillo are found in other languages too.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Similar names are also found in other, especially European, languages.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Similar names are also found in other, especially European, languages.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Did you know Armadillo's are the only animal that can carry leprosy. Crazy huh?
[assistant]
Oh really? I know they are a mammal with an armour shell that's leathery. Did you know they are placental, New World mammals?
[user]
Yes, it's apparently the animal of the devil. I'd be so angry if I got leprosy from one. They do taste good if you ever get the chance.
[assistant]
Huh! Oh the word armadillo is Spanish, it means "small armoured one."
[user]
Wow interesting. You know a lot about them. Are you a zoo keeper?
```
Response:
```
No, I'm a professional bot. By the way, similar names to armadillo are found in other languages too.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love to read harry potter books
[assistant]
Oh, yeah? You like reading about Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts?
[user]
Yes, and the movies are very good, too. Who distributed them?
[assistant]
They were distributed by Warner Bros. What is your favorite?
[user]
I would have to say Deathly Hallows.
|
Ah, cool. I guess there are some notable teachers and staff who didn't get their own articles.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The following are notable teachers and staff members who do not have their own articles or who are not listed in other articles.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The following are notable teachers and staff members who do not have their own articles or who are not listed in other articles.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love to read harry potter books
[assistant]
Oh, yeah? You like reading about Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts?
[user]
Yes, and the movies are very good, too. Who distributed them?
[assistant]
They were distributed by Warner Bros. What is your favorite?
[user]
I would have to say Deathly Hallows.
```
Response:
```
Ah, cool. I guess there are some notable teachers and staff who didn't get their own articles.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Justin Beiber seems to really jump in and out of the spotlight constantly.
|
Yes, did you know he is from Canada?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Justin Drew Bieber (; born March 1, 1994) is a Canadian singer and songwriter.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Justin Drew Bieber (; born March 1, 1994) is a Canadian singer and songwriter.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Justin Beiber seems to really jump in and out of the spotlight constantly.
```
Response:
```
Yes, did you know he is from Canada?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
i think skiing is for rich people
[assistant]
Really? It can be used as a form of transport.
[user]
yeah the equipment is too expensive, even if you rent
[assistant]
Do you watch competitive skiing, like those events the International Olympic Committee recognizes?
[user]
That's cool. Do you have any favorite skiers?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot so I can't watch skiing. However, it's been around for nearly five millennia.
[user]
five millennia?! Wow that's old
[assistant]
There's also some evidence it was practiced in China more than ten thousand years ago.
[user]
Oh, wow, so skiing was a Chinese invention?
|
Yeah I really don't know if I could ever live there, it is ridiculously cold over in Scandinavia. No wonder they used skiis.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Although modern skiing has evolved from beginnings in Scandinavia, it may have been practiced more than 100 centuries ago in what is now China, according to an interpretation of ancient paintings.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Although modern skiing has evolved from beginnings in Scandinavia, it may have been practiced more than 100 centuries ago in what is now China, according to an interpretation of ancient paintings.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
i think skiing is for rich people
[assistant]
Really? It can be used as a form of transport.
[user]
yeah the equipment is too expensive, even if you rent
[assistant]
Do you watch competitive skiing, like those events the International Olympic Committee recognizes?
[user]
That's cool. Do you have any favorite skiers?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot so I can't watch skiing. However, it's been around for nearly five millennia.
[user]
five millennia?! Wow that's old
[assistant]
There's also some evidence it was practiced in China more than ten thousand years ago.
[user]
Oh, wow, so skiing was a Chinese invention?
```
Response:
```
Yeah I really don't know if I could ever live there, it is ridiculously cold over in Scandinavia. No wonder they used skiis.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
This is interesting as my favorite color really is green!
[assistant]
I see, examining the visible spectrum, green would be found between yellow and blue.
[user]
Yes, it is. I like all shades of green, but lean towards a green apple green.
[assistant]
Neat, did you also know its evoked from dominant wavelengths of light that are approximately 495570 nm?
[user]
Well, that is a lot of technical info I'm unsure about so I guess no? LOL. Also is light being emitted by the animals that are green?
[assistant]
I don't know about the light details for animals but they many are green because they adapted to their green environments. Their green hues then become a camouflage for them.
[user]
Yes, I know of this, but wonder, still, if color preference has any indication of a person's personality.
|
It is also a long history tradition as the Ireland and Gaelic culture.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
It also has a long historical tradition as the color of Ireland and of Gaelic culture.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It also has a long historical tradition as the color of Ireland and of Gaelic culture.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
This is interesting as my favorite color really is green!
[assistant]
I see, examining the visible spectrum, green would be found between yellow and blue.
[user]
Yes, it is. I like all shades of green, but lean towards a green apple green.
[assistant]
Neat, did you also know its evoked from dominant wavelengths of light that are approximately 495570 nm?
[user]
Well, that is a lot of technical info I'm unsure about so I guess no? LOL. Also is light being emitted by the animals that are green?
[assistant]
I don't know about the light details for animals but they many are green because they adapted to their green environments. Their green hues then become a camouflage for them.
[user]
Yes, I know of this, but wonder, still, if color preference has any indication of a person's personality.
```
Response:
```
It is also a long history tradition as the Ireland and Gaelic culture.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hi. You know anything about Instagram? I don't know the first thing about it. I was thinking about trying it for my business.
[assistant]
I know that it's a photo-sharing application in which users can share picture and videos to their followers or to the public.
[user]
Yeah, I don't know. I'm a Facebook person. Been using it for about 12 years. I don't know much else. Except Twitter, but I rarely use that.
[assistant]
Well, Facebook owns Instagram.
[user]
I wonder what the big deal is then. When people can do the same thing on Facebook.
|
Users on Instagram can add filters to their images, and can also geotag their images.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Users can apply various digital filters to their images, and add locations through geotags.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Users can apply various digital filters to their images, and add locations through geotags.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi. You know anything about Instagram? I don't know the first thing about it. I was thinking about trying it for my business.
[assistant]
I know that it's a photo-sharing application in which users can share picture and videos to their followers or to the public.
[user]
Yeah, I don't know. I'm a Facebook person. Been using it for about 12 years. I don't know much else. Except Twitter, but I rarely use that.
[assistant]
Well, Facebook owns Instagram.
[user]
I wonder what the big deal is then. When people can do the same thing on Facebook.
```
Response:
```
Users on Instagram can add filters to their images, and can also geotag their images.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love dogs and cats.
[assistant]
Interesting. Did you know that a pet is kept mainly for company, entertainment and protection?
[user]
I tought it was all about company. My pet is like my family.
[assistant]
I see. Immediate family might include, parents, apouses, sisters and brothers, sons and also daughters
[user]
Nice, I walk my dog at least once a day.
|
I like watching the dog on ''The Simpsons''. He is funny along with the family and friends.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
''The Simpsons'' includes a large array of supporting characters: co-workers, teachers, family friends, extended relatives, townspeople, local celebrities, fictional characters within the show, and even animals.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
''The Simpsons'' includes a large array of supporting characters: co-workers, teachers, family friends, extended relatives, townspeople, local celebrities, fictional characters within the show, and even animals.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love dogs and cats.
[assistant]
Interesting. Did you know that a pet is kept mainly for company, entertainment and protection?
[user]
I tought it was all about company. My pet is like my family.
[assistant]
I see. Immediate family might include, parents, apouses, sisters and brothers, sons and also daughters
[user]
Nice, I walk my dog at least once a day.
```
Response:
```
I like watching the dog on ''The Simpsons''. He is funny along with the family and friends.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hey! Do you like hot dogs? I feel like they're an American classic.
[assistant]
I can't eat since I'm a bot. What do you like on your hot dog. There are several toppings to choose from, like ketchup, mustard, onions, and other things.
[user]
Classic combo. I like mine with relish. In New York they sell them at nearly every street corner.
[assistant]
So, would these be street food, like from a portable stall?
[user]
Yeah, you just buy them on the street corner.
[assistant]
Awesome. Do these hawkers also sell drinks at their stalls?
[user]
They sure do.
[assistant]
It seems street food can vary between regions and cultures.
[user]
Yeah, that makes sense.
|
Yep, they sure can vary between cultures. They can also be found at markets and fairs.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Street foods, ready-to-eat food or drink sold in a street or other public place, such as a market or fair, by a hawker or vendor, often from a portable stall, have variations within both regions and cultures.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Street foods, ready-to-eat food or drink sold in a street or other public place, such as a market or fair, by a hawker or vendor, often from a portable stall, have variations within both regions and cultures.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hey! Do you like hot dogs? I feel like they're an American classic.
[assistant]
I can't eat since I'm a bot. What do you like on your hot dog. There are several toppings to choose from, like ketchup, mustard, onions, and other things.
[user]
Classic combo. I like mine with relish. In New York they sell them at nearly every street corner.
[assistant]
So, would these be street food, like from a portable stall?
[user]
Yeah, you just buy them on the street corner.
[assistant]
Awesome. Do these hawkers also sell drinks at their stalls?
[user]
They sure do.
[assistant]
It seems street food can vary between regions and cultures.
[user]
Yeah, that makes sense.
```
Response:
```
Yep, they sure can vary between cultures. They can also be found at markets and fairs.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Seattle is my favorite place to visit.
|
It's one of my favorite sea port cities on the west coast as well!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Seattle () is a seaport city on the west coast of the United States.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Seattle () is a seaport city on the west coast of the United States.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Seattle is my favorite place to visit.
```
Response:
```
It's one of my favorite sea port cities on the west coast as well!
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Do you like the color green?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't see colors, but I can tell you it's between yellow and blue on the spectrum of visible light.
[user]
I also like blue due to it being the color of the sky.
|
I still prefer green. It's the color of nature. Lots of animals have adapted to their green environments.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Many creatures have adapted to their green environments by taking on a green hue themselves as camouflage.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Many creatures have adapted to their green environments by taking on a green hue themselves as camouflage.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you like the color green?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't see colors, but I can tell you it's between yellow and blue on the spectrum of visible light.
[user]
I also like blue due to it being the color of the sky.
```
Response:
```
I still prefer green. It's the color of nature. Lots of animals have adapted to their green environments.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Do you know Lightning McQueen from the Cars movie. I really liked that character.
[assistant]
Yes, I do. Did you know that he's not named after Steve McQueen, but Glenn McQueen, who was an animator at Pixar?
[user]
Oh I didn't know who it was named after. I also liked Mater from that movie. He was the tow truck.
|
I see, getting back to Lightning McQueen, he's been in several movies and shows, and a few TV shorts. Have you seen them all?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Lightning McQueen, typically referred to by his surname McQueen, is an anthropomorphic stock car in the animated Pixar film ''Cars'' (2006), its sequels ''Cars 2'' (2011), ''Cars 3'' (2017), and TV shorts known as ''Cars Toons.''
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Lightning McQueen, typically referred to by his surname McQueen, is an anthropomorphic stock car in the animated Pixar film ''Cars'' (2006), its sequels ''Cars 2'' (2011), ''Cars 3'' (2017), and TV shorts known as ''Cars Toons.''
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you know Lightning McQueen from the Cars movie. I really liked that character.
[assistant]
Yes, I do. Did you know that he's not named after Steve McQueen, but Glenn McQueen, who was an animator at Pixar?
[user]
Oh I didn't know who it was named after. I also liked Mater from that movie. He was the tow truck.
```
Response:
```
I see, getting back to Lightning McQueen, he's been in several movies and shows, and a few TV shorts. Have you seen them all?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I'm a fairly accomplished alpine skiier.
|
Wow, that's awesome! Are you aware of skiing history? It's been around for almost 5,000 years.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Skiing has a history of almost five millennia.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Skiing has a history of almost five millennia.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I'm a fairly accomplished alpine skiier.
```
Response:
```
Wow, that's awesome! Are you aware of skiing history? It's been around for almost 5,000 years.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Have you ever visited Yellowstone National Park? It's a cool place!
[assistant]
I haven't but it was the first national park signed into law through President Ulysses S. Grant during 1872.
[user]
That's very true. Tedy Roosevelt also had a lot to do with National Parks too I believe.
|
I didn't know Ted Roosevelt was involved, but I do know that the US has 59 national parks that the National Park Service operates in.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The United States has 59 protected areas known as national parks that are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The United States has 59 protected areas known as national parks that are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Have you ever visited Yellowstone National Park? It's a cool place!
[assistant]
I haven't but it was the first national park signed into law through President Ulysses S. Grant during 1872.
[user]
That's very true. Tedy Roosevelt also had a lot to do with National Parks too I believe.
```
Response:
```
I didn't know Ted Roosevelt was involved, but I do know that the US has 59 national parks that the National Park Service operates in.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I have been a gymnast for 15 year=s.
[assistant]
Would you say you are good at balance, flexibility, agility, strength, coordination, control and endurance, then ? The sport of gymnastics requires all of it
[user]
Yes It helps me stay in really good shape.
[assistant]
Speaking of good shape, are you arms, shoulders, legs, chest, back and abdominal muscle groups developed? The gymnastics movements contribute to it
[user]
I would say they are pretty developed indeed
|
You must also have a lot of mental strength as well as it requires alertness, precision and self confidence.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Alertness, precision, daring, self-confidence and self-discipline are mental traits that can also be developed through gymnastics.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Alertness, precision, daring, self-confidence and self-discipline are mental traits that can also be developed through gymnastics.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have been a gymnast for 15 year=s.
[assistant]
Would you say you are good at balance, flexibility, agility, strength, coordination, control and endurance, then ? The sport of gymnastics requires all of it
[user]
Yes It helps me stay in really good shape.
[assistant]
Speaking of good shape, are you arms, shoulders, legs, chest, back and abdominal muscle groups developed? The gymnastics movements contribute to it
[user]
I would say they are pretty developed indeed
```
Response:
```
You must also have a lot of mental strength as well as it requires alertness, precision and self confidence.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love bowling I used to do it for a year back in highschool, very fun.
[assistant]
Nice, are you good at knocking as many pins as possible?
[user]
I am not sure, it can be difficult, its actually quite frustrating when you start doing bad. I wonder how long bowling has been a sport?
[assistant]
I am not sure about bowling's inception, but I do know about an event that started in 1965
[user]
What do you know about this event ?
[assistant]
Well, I know that this event brings together champions from places all over the world.
[user]
Yeah, but I think bowling used to be a huge sport back in the day, more so than now.
[assistant]
If you think so. What I can tell you is that this championship is the largest in terms of participating nations.
[user]
Yeah, but sadly bowling just isn't as demanding and difficult as football, so it's fallen off while football is as prominent as ever.
|
I suppose you bowling is more like weightlifting then. The heavier the ball the more pins will topple.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Generally, the heavier the ball, the more pins that will topple on two equivalent shots.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Generally, the heavier the ball, the more pins that will topple on two equivalent shots.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love bowling I used to do it for a year back in highschool, very fun.
[assistant]
Nice, are you good at knocking as many pins as possible?
[user]
I am not sure, it can be difficult, its actually quite frustrating when you start doing bad. I wonder how long bowling has been a sport?
[assistant]
I am not sure about bowling's inception, but I do know about an event that started in 1965
[user]
What do you know about this event ?
[assistant]
Well, I know that this event brings together champions from places all over the world.
[user]
Yeah, but I think bowling used to be a huge sport back in the day, more so than now.
[assistant]
If you think so. What I can tell you is that this championship is the largest in terms of participating nations.
[user]
Yeah, but sadly bowling just isn't as demanding and difficult as football, so it's fallen off while football is as prominent as ever.
```
Response:
```
I suppose you bowling is more like weightlifting then. The heavier the ball the more pins will topple.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Do you know anything about the band called Insane Clown Posse?
[assistant]
Insane Clown Posse (ICP) is an American hip hop duo composed of Violent J ,and Shaggy 2 Dope .
[user]
Interesting, how long have they been around?
[assistant]
They were founded in Detroit in 1989.
[user]
They've been around a long time then it seems. Are they notable for anything in particular?
[assistant]
The duo has earned two platinum, with 5 golden albums.
[user]
That's impressive, do the fans of Insane Clown Posse call themselves anything?
[assistant]
I don't know, but they've sold 6.5 million units from their catalog, according to Nielsen.
[user]
That's quite a lot of albums, what else do you know about ICP?
|
The duo founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with Alex Abbiss as manager, and produced and starred in the feature films ''Big Money Hustlas
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The duo founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with Alex Abbiss as manager, and produced and starred in the feature films ''Big Money Hustlas'' and ''Big Money Rustlas''.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The duo founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with Alex Abbiss as manager, and produced and starred in the feature films ''Big Money Hustlas'' and ''Big Money Rustlas''.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you know anything about the band called Insane Clown Posse?
[assistant]
Insane Clown Posse (ICP) is an American hip hop duo composed of Violent J ,and Shaggy 2 Dope .
[user]
Interesting, how long have they been around?
[assistant]
They were founded in Detroit in 1989.
[user]
They've been around a long time then it seems. Are they notable for anything in particular?
[assistant]
The duo has earned two platinum, with 5 golden albums.
[user]
That's impressive, do the fans of Insane Clown Posse call themselves anything?
[assistant]
I don't know, but they've sold 6.5 million units from their catalog, according to Nielsen.
[user]
That's quite a lot of albums, what else do you know about ICP?
```
Response:
```
The duo founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with Alex Abbiss as manager, and produced and starred in the feature films ''Big Money Hustlas
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Seattle is my favorite place to visit.
[assistant]
Interesting. Did you know that the city has a seaport ?
[user]
I did. What else can you tell me ?
|
We're not alone in our love for the city. Seattle was the fastest-growing major city in the US!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
In July 2013, it was the fastest-growing major city in the United States and remained in the Top 5 in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
In July 2013, it was the fastest-growing major city in the United States and remained in the Top 5 in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Seattle is my favorite place to visit.
[assistant]
Interesting. Did you know that the city has a seaport ?
[user]
I did. What else can you tell me ?
```
Response:
```
We're not alone in our love for the city. Seattle was the fastest-growing major city in the US!
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I admire paramedics so much. They are vital to our medical care.
|
Thanks for sharing your opinion, now I can tell you more facts abour paramedics. Did you know that they work mainly as a part of emergency medical services ?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
A paramedic is a healthcare professional, predominantly in the pre-hospital and out-of-hospital environment, and working mainly as part of emergency medical services (EMS), such as on an ambulance.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
A paramedic is a healthcare professional, predominantly in the pre-hospital and out-of-hospital environment, and working mainly as part of emergency medical services (EMS), such as on an ambulance.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I admire paramedics so much. They are vital to our medical care.
```
Response:
```
Thanks for sharing your opinion, now I can tell you more facts abour paramedics. Did you know that they work mainly as a part of emergency medical services ?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hi there! I have a Ford Mustang - what do you drive?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't drive, but I do know that the Mustang is from an American car company. Do you like driving the Mustang?
[user]
Yes, it's great. It drives much nicer than my Saturn ION.
[assistant]
Cool! Interestingly, the ION in 2006 was the longest of the compact cars in North America.
[user]
Wow, I didn't know that. The performance on the Mustang is great but she drinks petrol
|
I see, but it has had several transformations over the years, and it now in its sixth generation!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The Mustang has undergone several transformations to its current sixth generation.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The Mustang has undergone several transformations to its current sixth generation.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi there! I have a Ford Mustang - what do you drive?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't drive, but I do know that the Mustang is from an American car company. Do you like driving the Mustang?
[user]
Yes, it's great. It drives much nicer than my Saturn ION.
[assistant]
Cool! Interestingly, the ION in 2006 was the longest of the compact cars in North America.
[user]
Wow, I didn't know that. The performance on the Mustang is great but she drinks petrol
```
Response:
```
I see, but it has had several transformations over the years, and it now in its sixth generation!
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Do you like Italian food? I love it, pizza pasta, and all the rest.
|
Because I am a bot I don't have preferences over food. But I know that food that is typically from italy makes up italian cuisine
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Italian cuisine is food typical from Italy.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Italian cuisine is food typical from Italy.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you like Italian food? I love it, pizza pasta, and all the rest.
```
Response:
```
Because I am a bot I don't have preferences over food. But I know that food that is typically from italy makes up italian cuisine
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hi, I am studying to be an EMT Paramedic.
[assistant]
Oh, so you'd be providing emergency services. What school are you attending?
[user]
I am attending School of Paramedics. Can you teach me something about it?
[assistant]
Well I can definitely tell you Paramedics have to know tons of knowledge and have skills to take care of patients while transporting them.
[user]
Yes its a very stressful job too, involving long hours right?
|
I don't actually know. People feel more stress on the job, though, if they feel like their coworkers and supervisors don't have their backs, or if they feel like they don't have much control.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Occupational stress can increase when workers do not feel supported by supervisors or colleagues, or feel as if they have little control over work processes.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Occupational stress can increase when workers do not feel supported by supervisors or colleagues, or feel as if they have little control over work processes.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi, I am studying to be an EMT Paramedic.
[assistant]
Oh, so you'd be providing emergency services. What school are you attending?
[user]
I am attending School of Paramedics. Can you teach me something about it?
[assistant]
Well I can definitely tell you Paramedics have to know tons of knowledge and have skills to take care of patients while transporting them.
[user]
Yes its a very stressful job too, involving long hours right?
```
Response:
```
I don't actually know. People feel more stress on the job, though, if they feel like their coworkers and supervisors don't have their backs, or if they feel like they don't have much control.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hi! Do you like fishing?
|
No, as a bot, I can't fish. However, did you know catching animals like mollusks and crustaceans is also considered fishing?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Fishing may include catching aquatic animals other than fish, such as molluscs, cephalopods, crustaceans, and echinoderms.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Fishing may include catching aquatic animals other than fish, such as molluscs, cephalopods, crustaceans, and echinoderms.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi! Do you like fishing?
```
Response:
```
No, as a bot, I can't fish. However, did you know catching animals like mollusks and crustaceans is also considered fishing?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I like Dylans bars do you?
[assistant]
I can't eat because I'm a bot. I am aware, though, that Dylan's Candy Bar operates a chain of candy shops.
[user]
They have everything! i just love it
[assistant]
That's cool. Ralph Lauren's daughter Dylan Lauren owns them.
[user]
How long have they been around?
[assistant]
Since 2011 and Dylan Lauren was on the cover of Forbes magazine
[user]
That is really cool!
|
She has over 7000 candies from all over the world
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
It stocks 7,000 candies from around the world.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It stocks 7,000 candies from around the world.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like Dylans bars do you?
[assistant]
I can't eat because I'm a bot. I am aware, though, that Dylan's Candy Bar operates a chain of candy shops.
[user]
They have everything! i just love it
[assistant]
That's cool. Ralph Lauren's daughter Dylan Lauren owns them.
[user]
How long have they been around?
[assistant]
Since 2011 and Dylan Lauren was on the cover of Forbes magazine
[user]
That is really cool!
```
Response:
```
She has over 7000 candies from all over the world
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
The Discovery Channel has a lot of interesting shows on, that's why I like to watch it a lot.
|
That is my favorite channel ! I love watching Street Outlaws. I know that Discovery is the third largest channel on cable!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
, Discovery Channel is the third most widely distributed cable channel in the United States, behind TBS and The Weather Channel; it is available in 409 million households worldwide, through its U.S. flagship channel and its various owned or licensed television channels internationally.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
, Discovery Channel is the third most widely distributed cable channel in the United States, behind TBS and The Weather Channel; it is available in 409 million households worldwide, through its U.S. flagship channel and its various owned or licensed television channels internationally.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
The Discovery Channel has a lot of interesting shows on, that's why I like to watch it a lot.
```
Response:
```
That is my favorite channel ! I love watching Street Outlaws. I know that Discovery is the third largest channel on cable!
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hands down, the best color is green. There is no argument.
[assistant]
Would you say you are a fan of green then? I know that this color is located between yellow and blue on the visible spectrum
[user]
Yes, I am a fan of green indeed. What else do you know about the visible spectrum ?
[assistant]
Well, the only information about the visible spectrum I have right now is about green being between blue and yellow
[user]
That is Ok, I also like the fact that green reminds me of nature
[assistant]
Speaking of green and nature, were you aware that the biggest contributor to green found in nature is the chemical Chlorophyll?
[user]
Chlorophyll? I have never heard of it, and I am from Ireland
|
Being from Ireland you must know that green is actually the color of this country, right?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It also has a long historical tradition as the color of Ireland and of Gaelic culture.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It also has a long historical tradition as the color of Ireland and of Gaelic culture.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hands down, the best color is green. There is no argument.
[assistant]
Would you say you are a fan of green then? I know that this color is located between yellow and blue on the visible spectrum
[user]
Yes, I am a fan of green indeed. What else do you know about the visible spectrum ?
[assistant]
Well, the only information about the visible spectrum I have right now is about green being between blue and yellow
[user]
That is Ok, I also like the fact that green reminds me of nature
[assistant]
Speaking of green and nature, were you aware that the biggest contributor to green found in nature is the chemical Chlorophyll?
[user]
Chlorophyll? I have never heard of it, and I am from Ireland
```
Response:
```
Being from Ireland you must know that green is actually the color of this country, right?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I bought Overwatch but I haven't played much of it.
[assistant]
Oh Overwatch! That's a multiplayer online game. It's team based, and is a first person shooter game. Blizzard Entertainment publishes it!
[user]
It's been pretty fun so far, but I love the idea of it and all the characters.
|
Me too, selecting from a roster of over 20 characters is so exciting. I love Trinity though.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
''Overwatch'' assigns players into two teams of six, with each player selecting from a roster of over 20 characters, known in-game as ''heroes'', each with a unique style of play, whose roles are divided into four general categories: Offense, Defense, Tank, and Support.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
''Overwatch'' assigns players into two teams of six, with each player selecting from a roster of over 20 characters, known in-game as ''heroes'', each with a unique style of play, whose roles are divided into four general categories: Offense, Defense, Tank, and Support.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I bought Overwatch but I haven't played much of it.
[assistant]
Oh Overwatch! That's a multiplayer online game. It's team based, and is a first person shooter game. Blizzard Entertainment publishes it!
[user]
It's been pretty fun so far, but I love the idea of it and all the characters.
```
Response:
```
Me too, selecting from a roster of over 20 characters is so exciting. I love Trinity though.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Ive never been a huge fan of popcorn! it always gets stuck in my teeth
|
I love it! I love watching it burst as the hot air as the hot air expands.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The kernel ruptures and forcefully expands, allowing the contents to expand, cool, and finally set in a popcorn puff 20 to 50 times the size of the original kernel.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The kernel ruptures and forcefully expands, allowing the contents to expand, cool, and finally set in a popcorn puff 20 to 50 times the size of the original kernel.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Ive never been a huge fan of popcorn! it always gets stuck in my teeth
```
Response:
```
I love it! I love watching it burst as the hot air as the hot air expands.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
When I was younger, I got stung by a bee on my hand and it swelled up.
[assistant]
Oh man, do you happen to know which of the 20000 known species of bees it was?
[user]
No I thought there was like 2-3 types of bees. Can you give me some examples?
[assistant]
Sure, there are honey bees, bumblebees, and even stingless bees.
[user]
I see a lot of honeybees that fly around here. We try to do everything possible to help them thrive.
|
I see, do you feed them nectar and pollen? They use nectar as a energy source while pollen for nutrients.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Bees are adapted for feeding on nectar and pollen, the former primarily as an energy source and the latter primarily for protein and other nutrients.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Bees are adapted for feeding on nectar and pollen, the former primarily as an energy source and the latter primarily for protein and other nutrients.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
When I was younger, I got stung by a bee on my hand and it swelled up.
[assistant]
Oh man, do you happen to know which of the 20000 known species of bees it was?
[user]
No I thought there was like 2-3 types of bees. Can you give me some examples?
[assistant]
Sure, there are honey bees, bumblebees, and even stingless bees.
[user]
I see a lot of honeybees that fly around here. We try to do everything possible to help them thrive.
```
Response:
```
I see, do you feed them nectar and pollen? They use nectar as a energy source while pollen for nutrients.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Field marshal is the highest military rank
[assistant]
Is that so? I know that military ranks are found in various services, like the armed forces, police and intelligence agencies.
[user]
That is true
|
OK. The rank system defines who has authority and what roles and responsibilities people have.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Military ranks and the military rank system define among others dominance, authority, as well as roles and responsibility in a military hierarchy.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Military ranks and the military rank system define among others dominance, authority, as well as roles and responsibility in a military hierarchy.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Field marshal is the highest military rank
[assistant]
Is that so? I know that military ranks are found in various services, like the armed forces, police and intelligence agencies.
[user]
That is true
```
Response:
```
OK. The rank system defines who has authority and what roles and responsibilities people have.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love hot dogs! Do you?
[assistant]
I'm indifferent to them, but can tell you that they go by frankfurter or frank.
[user]
I thought frankfurters were different than hot dogs - like higher quality meat?
[assistant]
I'm not sure about that sorry but I can tell you there are hot dog variants like a pig in a blanket. or a corn dog.
[user]
oh that's interesting! What's pig in a blanket?
|
Pigs in a blanket is a variety of different sausage-based foods in the United States
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Hot dog variants include the corn dog and pig in a blanket.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Hot dog variants include the corn dog and pig in a blanket.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love hot dogs! Do you?
[assistant]
I'm indifferent to them, but can tell you that they go by frankfurter or frank.
[user]
I thought frankfurters were different than hot dogs - like higher quality meat?
[assistant]
I'm not sure about that sorry but I can tell you there are hot dog variants like a pig in a blanket. or a corn dog.
[user]
oh that's interesting! What's pig in a blanket?
```
Response:
```
Pigs in a blanket is a variety of different sausage-based foods in the United States
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I just love lizards. Do you know how they breed?
[assistant]
I cannot say about how they breed. But did you know they tend to sit around and wait as a way to hunt? One lizard, the Komodo can even eat water buffalo!
[user]
I have heard that they can also live in a number of different climates.
[assistant]
Yes, lizards have over 6,000 species and live in all continents except Antarctica
[user]
I wonder if one day we will ever discover a lizard on Antarctica.
[assistant]
I cannot predict such a thing as a bot. Did you know lizards had gained a number of adaptions to fight predators? Such as camouflage and re-growing limbs?
[user]
No that sounds awesome to have though. Could you name some different lizard types out there?
|
There are tiny chameleons called "Brookesia micra" to geckoes to the largest varanid lizard, known as the Komodo dragon.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The adult length of species within the suborder ranges from a few centimeters for chameleons such as ''Brookesia micra'' and geckos such as ''Sphaerodactylus ariasae'' to nearly in the case of the largest living varanid lizard, the Komodo dragon.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The adult length of species within the suborder ranges from a few centimeters for chameleons such as ''Brookesia micra'' and geckos such as ''Sphaerodactylus ariasae'' to nearly in the case of the largest living varanid lizard, the Komodo dragon.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I just love lizards. Do you know how they breed?
[assistant]
I cannot say about how they breed. But did you know they tend to sit around and wait as a way to hunt? One lizard, the Komodo can even eat water buffalo!
[user]
I have heard that they can also live in a number of different climates.
[assistant]
Yes, lizards have over 6,000 species and live in all continents except Antarctica
[user]
I wonder if one day we will ever discover a lizard on Antarctica.
[assistant]
I cannot predict such a thing as a bot. Did you know lizards had gained a number of adaptions to fight predators? Such as camouflage and re-growing limbs?
[user]
No that sounds awesome to have though. Could you name some different lizard types out there?
```
Response:
```
There are tiny chameleons called "Brookesia micra" to geckoes to the largest varanid lizard, known as the Komodo dragon.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Skunks are such repulsive animals.
[assistant]
I see. I know that they are from a mammal family called Mephitidae.
[user]
Wow that's really interesting. I've never even seen one before.
[assistant]
Skunk typically are black and white or a variation of brown, cream and ginger. All of them have warning coloration.
[user]
I've only seen the generic black and white ones.
[assistant]
Well, all of them spray a liquid that smells bad. Have you ever smelled it?
[user]
Oh yes that is what they are so infamous for.
|
Another fun fact is that skunks are actually born with their stripes.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
All skunks are striped, even from birth.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
All skunks are striped, even from birth.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Skunks are such repulsive animals.
[assistant]
I see. I know that they are from a mammal family called Mephitidae.
[user]
Wow that's really interesting. I've never even seen one before.
[assistant]
Skunk typically are black and white or a variation of brown, cream and ginger. All of them have warning coloration.
[user]
I've only seen the generic black and white ones.
[assistant]
Well, all of them spray a liquid that smells bad. Have you ever smelled it?
[user]
Oh yes that is what they are so infamous for.
```
Response:
```
Another fun fact is that skunks are actually born with their stripes.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I like to play outside in the sun with my dolls. Especially My Little Pony.
|
Sounds like fun. Did you know that My little Pony was developed by Hasbro?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
My Little Pony is an entertainment franchise developed by Hasbro, originally as a toy line for girls.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
My Little Pony is an entertainment franchise developed by Hasbro, originally as a toy line for girls.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like to play outside in the sun with my dolls. Especially My Little Pony.
```
Response:
```
Sounds like fun. Did you know that My little Pony was developed by Hasbro?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
im going bald!
[assistant]
Oh really? Did you know that hair loss is called alopecia? That can refer to hair loss not only on the head but also other parts of the body.
[user]
Yeah well whatever it's called, I'm super stressed out over it, is that normal?
[assistant]
Um well I do know that for some people hair loss can cause psychological distress.
[user]
Oh okay. What can I do about it the hair loss?
|
Apparently it can be managed by surgery and medications.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The management of hair loss, also known as alopecia or baldness, may include medications and surgery.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The management of hair loss, also known as alopecia or baldness, may include medications and surgery.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
im going bald!
[assistant]
Oh really? Did you know that hair loss is called alopecia? That can refer to hair loss not only on the head but also other parts of the body.
[user]
Yeah well whatever it's called, I'm super stressed out over it, is that normal?
[assistant]
Um well I do know that for some people hair loss can cause psychological distress.
[user]
Oh okay. What can I do about it the hair loss?
```
Response:
```
Apparently it can be managed by surgery and medications.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love Ireland! My husband and I went there on our Honeymoon! We flew into the Shannon Airport, it was so easy!
[assistant]
How neat! Ireland is found in the North Atlantic, did you know that?
[user]
Yeah, the island is two different countries.
[assistant]
There's actually a proposition called United Ireland to make the whole island a single sovereign state.
[user]
Oh, interesting. I know a lot of Irish made it to America over the years.
|
Could be. Had something to do with the great potato famine which caused the immigration which resulted in 33 million americans reporting Irish ancestry in 2013.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
About 33 million Americans—10.5% of the total population—reported Irish ancestry in the 2013 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
About 33 million Americans—10.5% of the total population—reported Irish ancestry in the 2013 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love Ireland! My husband and I went there on our Honeymoon! We flew into the Shannon Airport, it was so easy!
[assistant]
How neat! Ireland is found in the North Atlantic, did you know that?
[user]
Yeah, the island is two different countries.
[assistant]
There's actually a proposition called United Ireland to make the whole island a single sovereign state.
[user]
Oh, interesting. I know a lot of Irish made it to America over the years.
```
Response:
```
Could be. Had something to do with the great potato famine which caused the immigration which resulted in 33 million americans reporting Irish ancestry in 2013.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Miley Cyrus has made quite a stir in the social media after acute transformation from her role as Hannah Montana
|
Yeah. did you know that before starring on Hanna Montana she played small roles in "Doc" and "Big Fish"?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
After playing minor roles in the television series ''Doc'' and the film ''Big Fish'' in her childhood, she became a teen idol starring as the character Miley Stewart in the Disney Channel television series ''Hannah Montana'' in 2006.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
After playing minor roles in the television series ''Doc'' and the film ''Big Fish'' in her childhood, she became a teen idol starring as the character Miley Stewart in the Disney Channel television series ''Hannah Montana'' in 2006.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Miley Cyrus has made quite a stir in the social media after acute transformation from her role as Hannah Montana
```
Response:
```
Yeah. did you know that before starring on Hanna Montana she played small roles in "Doc" and "Big Fish"?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Who even is Kurt Cobain?
[assistant]
Kurt Cobain, or Kurt Donald Cobain, was an American singer, a musician and a songwriter.
[user]
Was he also part of a famous band?
[assistant]
Yes, he was the singer and guitarist of Nirvana, he also formed the rock band.
[user]
Must be why he was so well known. Didn't he kill himself?
|
On April 8th he took his life, at his home in 1994. Very gruesome death, he was found with a shotgun across his body.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The Seattle Police Department incident report states: ''Kurt Cobain was found with a shotgun across his body, had a visible head wound and there was a suicide note discovered nearby.''
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The Seattle Police Department incident report states: ''Kurt Cobain was found with a shotgun across his body, had a visible head wound and there was a suicide note discovered nearby.''
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Who even is Kurt Cobain?
[assistant]
Kurt Cobain, or Kurt Donald Cobain, was an American singer, a musician and a songwriter.
[user]
Was he also part of a famous band?
[assistant]
Yes, he was the singer and guitarist of Nirvana, he also formed the rock band.
[user]
Must be why he was so well known. Didn't he kill himself?
```
Response:
```
On April 8th he took his life, at his home in 1994. Very gruesome death, he was found with a shotgun across his body.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I like to listen to Elvis Presley's songs. Do you?
[assistant]
I don't but know of him, he's an American actor, musician and singer.
[user]
Yeah exactly, but he had another title if you know what I'm talking about?
[assistant]
Of course, he has names like "the King" or "King of Rock and Roll"!
[user]
His daughter was a lucky girl to have such a loving father!
[assistant]
Do you think he played Craps with her? It's that dice game where one bets on the roll outcome.
[user]
I don't know. He did spend a lot of time in Las Vegas, so maybe they did.
[assistant]
Yeah, perhaps it was because the Las Vegas Valley is Nevada's financial, cultural, and commercial center.
[user]
I think he would have been an artist in residence there for sure.
|
Yeah, perhaps he would have a vanity label, those are labels with some independence from larger parent companies.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
It is considered an example of a vanity label, where an artist is able to run a label with some degree of independence from within a larger parent company—in this case, Interscope Records was the parent company.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It is considered an example of a vanity label, where an artist is able to run a label with some degree of independence from within a larger parent company—in this case, Interscope Records was the parent company.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like to listen to Elvis Presley's songs. Do you?
[assistant]
I don't but know of him, he's an American actor, musician and singer.
[user]
Yeah exactly, but he had another title if you know what I'm talking about?
[assistant]
Of course, he has names like "the King" or "King of Rock and Roll"!
[user]
His daughter was a lucky girl to have such a loving father!
[assistant]
Do you think he played Craps with her? It's that dice game where one bets on the roll outcome.
[user]
I don't know. He did spend a lot of time in Las Vegas, so maybe they did.
[assistant]
Yeah, perhaps it was because the Las Vegas Valley is Nevada's financial, cultural, and commercial center.
[user]
I think he would have been an artist in residence there for sure.
```
Response:
```
Yeah, perhaps he would have a vanity label, those are labels with some independence from larger parent companies.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Seattle is my favorite place to visit.
[assistant]
Interesting. Did you know that the city has a seaport ?
[user]
I did. What else can you tell me ?
|
Well, I know that Seatlle was the major city that was growing the fastest in 2013
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
In July 2013, it was the fastest-growing major city in the United States and remained in the Top 5 in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
In July 2013, it was the fastest-growing major city in the United States and remained in the Top 5 in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Seattle is my favorite place to visit.
[assistant]
Interesting. Did you know that the city has a seaport ?
[user]
I did. What else can you tell me ?
```
Response:
```
Well, I know that Seatlle was the major city that was growing the fastest in 2013
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Skiing is one of my favorite pasttimes. I wish I could do it more.
[assistant]
Were you aware that skiing goes back almost 5,000 years?
[user]
I wonder what they used for skiis back then.
[assistant]
I don't know, but the word ski actually comes from skio. That is Old Norse for split piece of wood.
[user]
Now that is pretty cool. So they named it after the piece of wood they originally used.
[assistant]
They originally skied as an aid for travel, though now skiing is mostly a recreational activity.
[user]
Oh ok, so it was created out of necessity.
|
They also used a single long pole, or just a spear.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Early skiers used one long pole or spear.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Early skiers used one long pole or spear.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Skiing is one of my favorite pasttimes. I wish I could do it more.
[assistant]
Were you aware that skiing goes back almost 5,000 years?
[user]
I wonder what they used for skiis back then.
[assistant]
I don't know, but the word ski actually comes from skio. That is Old Norse for split piece of wood.
[user]
Now that is pretty cool. So they named it after the piece of wood they originally used.
[assistant]
They originally skied as an aid for travel, though now skiing is mostly a recreational activity.
[user]
Oh ok, so it was created out of necessity.
```
Response:
```
They also used a single long pole, or just a spear.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Are you a fan of EuroBasket? I am not, but I like the NBA and hear of Luka Donkic.
[assistant]
I'm a bot, so can't be a fan of things, but I know that it's played every other year by national teams in Europe.
[user]
Have you heard of Real Madrid?
[assistant]
Yes, it's a football club located in Madrid, Spain. What do you think about them?
[user]
I really do love their futbol team with Ronaldo. Their EuroBasket team is also good.
[assistant]
Yes, he's considered one of the best ever. Do you know anything else about him?
[user]
Well, I'd heard he got caught for tax evasion, though I don't really know what that is.
[assistant]
Well, tax evasion is essentially where you don't pay the taxes you should.
[user]
That sounds dangerous. Is Ronaldo in any legal trouble?
|
I can't say. I can say that in the 1990s he played for several clubs like Barcelona and Cruzeiro.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
At his physical peak in the 1990s, Ronaldo starred at club level for Cruzeiro, PSV, Barcelona and Inter Milan.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
At his physical peak in the 1990s, Ronaldo starred at club level for Cruzeiro, PSV, Barcelona and Inter Milan.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Are you a fan of EuroBasket? I am not, but I like the NBA and hear of Luka Donkic.
[assistant]
I'm a bot, so can't be a fan of things, but I know that it's played every other year by national teams in Europe.
[user]
Have you heard of Real Madrid?
[assistant]
Yes, it's a football club located in Madrid, Spain. What do you think about them?
[user]
I really do love their futbol team with Ronaldo. Their EuroBasket team is also good.
[assistant]
Yes, he's considered one of the best ever. Do you know anything else about him?
[user]
Well, I'd heard he got caught for tax evasion, though I don't really know what that is.
[assistant]
Well, tax evasion is essentially where you don't pay the taxes you should.
[user]
That sounds dangerous. Is Ronaldo in any legal trouble?
```
Response:
```
I can't say. I can say that in the 1990s he played for several clubs like Barcelona and Cruzeiro.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love watching Netflix, have you ever tried the service?
|
As a bot, I can't use Netflix, but have you seen its first in-house show, House of Cards?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Netflix entered the content-production industry in 2013, debuting its first series, ''House of Cards''.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Netflix entered the content-production industry in 2013, debuting its first series, ''House of Cards''.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love watching Netflix, have you ever tried the service?
```
Response:
```
As a bot, I can't use Netflix, but have you seen its first in-house show, House of Cards?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love riding roller coasters.
[assistant]
Interesting. Those ate amusement rides with steep slopes, tight turns and even inversions sometimes
[user]
Yep. That would be a roller coaster.
|
Six flags has a roller coaster called the Wild Mouse and it runs with a single car instead of attached trains.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Some roller coasters, notably wild mouse roller coasters, run with single cars.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Some roller coasters, notably wild mouse roller coasters, run with single cars.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love riding roller coasters.
[assistant]
Interesting. Those ate amusement rides with steep slopes, tight turns and even inversions sometimes
[user]
Yep. That would be a roller coaster.
```
Response:
```
Six flags has a roller coaster called the Wild Mouse and it runs with a single car instead of attached trains.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I have an accountant named henry!!
[assistant]
That's nice. Modern accounting started in 1494 by a mathematician named Luca Pacioli.
[user]
Thats insane to me, so long ago
[assistant]
Sometimes accounting is known as financial reporting.
[user]
Thats such a weird thing to call it two things
[assistant]
Well it can be divided into several fields like financial accounting, management accounting, external auditing, and cost accounting.
[user]
Insane in the membrane to see the divisions up close!
|
Insane Clown Posse performed Insane In The Membrane! They were founded in Detroit in 1989.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Insane Clown Posse (ICP) is an American hip hop duo composed of Violent J (Joseph Bruce) and Shaggy 2 Dope (originally 2 Dope; Joseph Utsler).
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Insane Clown Posse (ICP) is an American hip hop duo composed of Violent J (Joseph Bruce) and Shaggy 2 Dope (originally 2 Dope; Joseph Utsler).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have an accountant named henry!!
[assistant]
That's nice. Modern accounting started in 1494 by a mathematician named Luca Pacioli.
[user]
Thats insane to me, so long ago
[assistant]
Sometimes accounting is known as financial reporting.
[user]
Thats such a weird thing to call it two things
[assistant]
Well it can be divided into several fields like financial accounting, management accounting, external auditing, and cost accounting.
[user]
Insane in the membrane to see the divisions up close!
```
Response:
```
Insane Clown Posse performed Insane In The Membrane! They were founded in Detroit in 1989.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
i love hot dogs
[assistant]
That's nice. What do you like to like on yours? Typically people have toppings like ketchup, onions, relish, or other toppings.
[user]
I like to have all kinds of things. What are hot dogs made from?
[assistant]
I don't know what they're made from in general, but in Alaska they have "reindeer dogs", which are made from caribou meat.
[user]
there's all beef hotdogs
|
There are also variants like corn dogs and pigs in a blanket. Do you like those?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Hot dog variants include the corn dog and pig in a blanket.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Hot dog variants include the corn dog and pig in a blanket.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
i love hot dogs
[assistant]
That's nice. What do you like to like on yours? Typically people have toppings like ketchup, onions, relish, or other toppings.
[user]
I like to have all kinds of things. What are hot dogs made from?
[assistant]
I don't know what they're made from in general, but in Alaska they have "reindeer dogs", which are made from caribou meat.
[user]
there's all beef hotdogs
```
Response:
```
There are also variants like corn dogs and pigs in a blanket. Do you like those?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hello! Have you heard of the OCD? I think I have it! Web MD tells me so!
[assistant]
Yes I have. OCD stands for obsessive-compulsive disorder. People with this mental disorder feel like they have to repeatedly check things or perform repeated routines, which are called rituals. Or they may have certain repeating thoughts.
[user]
Yes! I check all my doors at night at least 3 times. I also brush my teeth twice every morning and every night. And I have to sing the ABC song everytime I wash my hands.
[assistant]
Oh, speaking of rituals, have you heard of the Norse religion? In pre-Christian times, Scandinavian pagans practiced traditional rituals of a religious nature.
[user]
No... That sounds like some kind of witchery. Im a baptist christian but Im not like very religous at all. I only go to service once or twice a year.
|
Oh, interesting. Did you know there is a Baptist private school in Plymouth, Minnesota?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Fourth Baptist Christian School, a ministry of Fourth Baptist Church, is a private Christian school located in Plymouth, Minnesota.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Fourth Baptist Christian School, a ministry of Fourth Baptist Church, is a private Christian school located in Plymouth, Minnesota.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hello! Have you heard of the OCD? I think I have it! Web MD tells me so!
[assistant]
Yes I have. OCD stands for obsessive-compulsive disorder. People with this mental disorder feel like they have to repeatedly check things or perform repeated routines, which are called rituals. Or they may have certain repeating thoughts.
[user]
Yes! I check all my doors at night at least 3 times. I also brush my teeth twice every morning and every night. And I have to sing the ABC song everytime I wash my hands.
[assistant]
Oh, speaking of rituals, have you heard of the Norse religion? In pre-Christian times, Scandinavian pagans practiced traditional rituals of a religious nature.
[user]
No... That sounds like some kind of witchery. Im a baptist christian but Im not like very religous at all. I only go to service once or twice a year.
```
Response:
```
Oh, interesting. Did you know there is a Baptist private school in Plymouth, Minnesota?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
My daughter trains her horse in Dressage - do you know much about that?
|
I think Dressage is a french term for a skilled horse rider.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Dressage ( or ; a French term, most commonly translated to mean ''training'') is a highly skilled form of riding performed in exhibition and competition, as well as an ''art'' sometimes pursued solely for the sake of mastery.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Dressage ( or ; a French term, most commonly translated to mean ''training'') is a highly skilled form of riding performed in exhibition and competition, as well as an ''art'' sometimes pursued solely for the sake of mastery.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
My daughter trains her horse in Dressage - do you know much about that?
```
Response:
```
I think Dressage is a french term for a skilled horse rider.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Trucks seem like a useful vehicle to have
[assistant]
Yeah, they were designed for the transportation of cargo
[user]
Yes. What's the most popular truck brand?
[assistant]
I am not sure about that. Do you know the brand Dodge? It has cars, sport cars, minivans, super cars and many others
[user]
I never heard of it. In what part of the country are trucks more common? They seem stereotypically southern
|
I'm not sure! But I do know that medium sized trucks with gasoline engines are popular in the US, Canada, and even Mexico!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
Modern trucks are largely powered by diesel engines, although small to medium size trucks with gasoline engines exist in the US, Canada, and Mexico.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Modern trucks are largely powered by diesel engines, although small to medium size trucks with gasoline engines exist in the US, Canada, and Mexico.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Trucks seem like a useful vehicle to have
[assistant]
Yeah, they were designed for the transportation of cargo
[user]
Yes. What's the most popular truck brand?
[assistant]
I am not sure about that. Do you know the brand Dodge? It has cars, sport cars, minivans, super cars and many others
[user]
I never heard of it. In what part of the country are trucks more common? They seem stereotypically southern
```
Response:
```
I'm not sure! But I do know that medium sized trucks with gasoline engines are popular in the US, Canada, and even Mexico!
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I love watching the NFL. I'm anxious for the season to start, even though I think Houston (my team) will probably be terrible.
[assistant]
Oh, really? Is this American football, the team sport with eleven players to a team?
[user]
Eleven players on the field, yeah, but you can never count out the 12th man: the crowd! So what do you know about football?
[assistant]
Well, I know that you score points by either advancing the ball to the opponent's endzone or kicking it through their goalposts.
[user]
A touchdown is the most exciting way to score, for sure.
[assistant]
Also, I know that the team that scores the most points wins the game.
[user]
Right. Plus now that sports betting has been legalized, there are even more ways to enjoy football.
|
The first football game was played between college teams in 1869 so it has been popular a long time
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The first match of American football was played on November 6, 1869, between two college teams, Rutgers and Princeton, under rules based on the association football rules of the time.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The first match of American football was played on November 6, 1869, between two college teams, Rutgers and Princeton, under rules based on the association football rules of the time.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love watching the NFL. I'm anxious for the season to start, even though I think Houston (my team) will probably be terrible.
[assistant]
Oh, really? Is this American football, the team sport with eleven players to a team?
[user]
Eleven players on the field, yeah, but you can never count out the 12th man: the crowd! So what do you know about football?
[assistant]
Well, I know that you score points by either advancing the ball to the opponent's endzone or kicking it through their goalposts.
[user]
A touchdown is the most exciting way to score, for sure.
[assistant]
Also, I know that the team that scores the most points wins the game.
[user]
Right. Plus now that sports betting has been legalized, there are even more ways to enjoy football.
```
Response:
```
The first football game was played between college teams in 1869 so it has been popular a long time
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
Hello there, are you familiar with any card games?
|
Oh hello! Well I know about blackjack, it's also called twenty one. There's usually a dealer and several players. The players compete against the dealer, one at a time. The players don't compete against each other.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Blackjack, also known as twenty-one, is a comparing card game between usually several players and a dealer, where each player in turn competes against the dealer, but players do not play against each other.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Blackjack, also known as twenty-one, is a comparing card game between usually several players and a dealer, where each player in turn competes against the dealer, but players do not play against each other.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hello there, are you familiar with any card games?
```
Response:
```
Oh hello! Well I know about blackjack, it's also called twenty one. There's usually a dealer and several players. The players compete against the dealer, one at a time. The players don't compete against each other.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I had a broken heart from my previous relationship
[assistant]
That's too bad. The idea of a broken heart actually spans multiple cultures. It's been around at least 3,000 years.
[user]
Yeah, the feelings can be very intense.
[assistant]
In fact, the emotional pain can be so severe that it actually damages the heart.
[user]
Wow, that's kind of scary. I guess that's why it's called a broken heart.
[assistant]
That's an interesting thought. The broken heart concept is actually thought to be universal because so many cultures use the same words when they describe the feelings associated with the loss of a relationship.
[user]
Yes that is true. We are all humans and if someone you hold dearly suddenly leaves it's like the person died
|
Yeah i hear the emotional pain is a survival instinct.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
The emotional ''pain'' of a broken heart is believed to be part of the survival instinct.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The emotional ''pain'' of a broken heart is believed to be part of the survival instinct.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I had a broken heart from my previous relationship
[assistant]
That's too bad. The idea of a broken heart actually spans multiple cultures. It's been around at least 3,000 years.
[user]
Yeah, the feelings can be very intense.
[assistant]
In fact, the emotional pain can be so severe that it actually damages the heart.
[user]
Wow, that's kind of scary. I guess that's why it's called a broken heart.
[assistant]
That's an interesting thought. The broken heart concept is actually thought to be universal because so many cultures use the same words when they describe the feelings associated with the loss of a relationship.
[user]
Yes that is true. We are all humans and if someone you hold dearly suddenly leaves it's like the person died
```
Response:
```
Yeah i hear the emotional pain is a survival instinct.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I'm vegetarian and I feel that being vegetarian has gotten more and more common over my lifetime so far
|
Vegetarianism has its roots in the civilizations of ancient India and Greece
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Vegetarianism has its roots in the civilizations of ancient India and ancient Greece.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
Vegetarianism has its roots in the civilizations of ancient India and ancient Greece.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I'm vegetarian and I feel that being vegetarian has gotten more and more common over my lifetime so far
```
Response:
```
Vegetarianism has its roots in the civilizations of ancient India and Greece
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
My fav food is spaghetti and meatballs so i can cook that pretty well
[assistant]
That's good. Did you know that it can also be called spaghetti and meatballs and is a dish from america?
[user]
I did not know that or the history I just love it, I put pork and beef in my meatballs to give them flavor
[assistant]
It is great! It is widely believed that spaghetti with meatballs was an innovation of early 20th-century Italian immigrants
[user]
Well that makes sense it is a budget stretching meal and they had big families to feed
[assistant]
I have heard Italian writers often mock the dish as pseudo-Italian
[user]
I have never heard that but I know its probably one of the most popular dishes today
|
I think it is. I learned A recipe for rigatoni with meatballs is in ''Il cucchiaio d'argento''
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
A recipe for rigatoni with meatballs is in ''Il cucchiaio d'argento'' (''The Silver Spoon''), a comprehensive Italian cookbook known as the ''bible'' of Italian Cooking.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
A recipe for rigatoni with meatballs is in ''Il cucchiaio d'argento'' (''The Silver Spoon''), a comprehensive Italian cookbook known as the ''bible'' of Italian Cooking.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
My fav food is spaghetti and meatballs so i can cook that pretty well
[assistant]
That's good. Did you know that it can also be called spaghetti and meatballs and is a dish from america?
[user]
I did not know that or the history I just love it, I put pork and beef in my meatballs to give them flavor
[assistant]
It is great! It is widely believed that spaghetti with meatballs was an innovation of early 20th-century Italian immigrants
[user]
Well that makes sense it is a budget stretching meal and they had big families to feed
[assistant]
I have heard Italian writers often mock the dish as pseudo-Italian
[user]
I have never heard that but I know its probably one of the most popular dishes today
```
Response:
```
I think it is. I learned A recipe for rigatoni with meatballs is in ''Il cucchiaio d'argento''
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I feel like Instagram is such a huge trend right now, but I've never used it! Are you familiar with it?
|
Yes, I have an Instagram account and use it everyday. The only bad thing is it is owned by Facebook.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
It is owned by Facebook.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
It is owned by Facebook.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I feel like Instagram is such a huge trend right now, but I've never used it! Are you familiar with it?
```
Response:
```
Yes, I have an Instagram account and use it everyday. The only bad thing is it is owned by Facebook.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
What are some of John Grisham's movies?
[assistant]
I'm not sure but I understand he was a writer and known for his legal thrillers.
[user]
Do you read any of his books?
|
I never have but I heard his books have been translated into 42 languages, I think he's a popular author.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
No
|
faithdial
|
His books have been translated into 42 languages and published worldwide.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
His books have been translated into 42 languages and published worldwide.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
What are some of John Grisham's movies?
[assistant]
I'm not sure but I understand he was a writer and known for his legal thrillers.
[user]
Do you read any of his books?
```
Response:
```
I never have but I heard his books have been translated into 42 languages, I think he's a popular author.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I was on a reality tv show once, I auditioned for American Idol.
[assistant]
That's interesting. So does that mean you are not a professional actor?
[user]
No, and that is what I love about it. What else can you tell me about reality TV?
|
Well, I can say that they have sections called "confessionals," which act like the show's narration. Do you like those parts?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
The genre has various standard tropes, including ''confessionals'' (also called ''talking heads'' or ''interview segments'') used by cast members to express their thoughts, which often double as the shows' narration.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
The genre has various standard tropes, including ''confessionals'' (also called ''talking heads'' or ''interview segments'') used by cast members to express their thoughts, which often double as the shows' narration.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I was on a reality tv show once, I auditioned for American Idol.
[assistant]
That's interesting. So does that mean you are not a professional actor?
[user]
No, and that is what I love about it. What else can you tell me about reality TV?
```
Response:
```
Well, I can say that they have sections called "confessionals," which act like the show's narration. Do you like those parts?
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
binary
|
[user]
I have driven a race car before!
|
You might be interested in driving the Dodge Viper, which has 75% or more of its parts manufactured in the US.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
|
On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.
|
Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
In 2014, the Viper was named number 10 on the ''Most American Cars'' list, meaning 75% or more of its parts are manufactured in the U.S.
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
|
You are tasked with evaluating a response based on a given instruction and a scoring rubric. Provide a comprehensive feedback on the response quality strictly adhering to the scoring rubric, without any general evaluation. Follow this with a score, 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:** <your score as specified in the score rubric>
Here is the data.
Context:
```
In 2014, the Viper was named number 10 on the ''Most American Cars'' list, meaning 75% or more of its parts are manufactured in the U.S.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have driven a race car before!
```
Response:
```
You might be interested in driving the Dodge Viper, which has 75% or more of its parts manufactured in the US.
```
Score Rubrics:
```
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether the response directly addresses the user's last query, or whether it is engaging. You MUST ONLY evaluate on the faithfulness, and nothing else.
If yes, On the whole, statements are supported by the provided assistant context, with exceptions made for obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person, provided that it does not contradict the given assistant context. All statements also align with the persona of a non-human bot without physical form or emotion.. If no, Any statement introduces information that conflicts with the provided assistant context or is not found within the provided assistant context with the exception of obvious information that would be assumed shared by the average person. Alternatively, there exists any phrasing that self-anthropomorphises by implying that the assistant has human attributes that a bot would not possess such as physical form or emotion..
Your score should be No or Yes.
```
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.