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]
Do you like the Grateful Dead?
[assistant]
I know that they are a rock band that was formed in california in 1965
[user]
Are they still together today?
[assistant]
I can't confirm you that. But i know that they are known for having a unique style, fusing rock elements, psychedelia, modal jazz country, and many others
[user]
Their music sounds very interesting to utilize all those styles. What is their most well known song?
|
i have heard hese various influences were distilled into a diverse and psychedelic whole that made the Grateful Dead sound
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
These various influences were distilled into a diverse and psychedelic whole that made the Grateful Dead ''the pioneering Godfathers of the jam band 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:
```
These various influences were distilled into a diverse and psychedelic whole that made the Grateful Dead ''the pioneering Godfathers of the jam band world''.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you like the Grateful Dead?
[assistant]
I know that they are a rock band that was formed in california in 1965
[user]
Are they still together today?
[assistant]
I can't confirm you that. But i know that they are known for having a unique style, fusing rock elements, psychedelia, modal jazz country, and many others
[user]
Their music sounds very interesting to utilize all those styles. What is their most well known song?
```
Response:
```
i have heard hese various influences were distilled into a diverse and psychedelic whole that made the Grateful Dead sound
```
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 wear Cardigan's in the winter. Do you own any?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot with no body. I know that a cardigan has an open front, though.
[user]
What else can you tell me about them?
|
garment has no buttons and hangs open by design
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 more modern version of the garment has no buttons and hangs open by design.
| 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 more modern version of the garment has no buttons and hangs open by design.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love to wear Cardigan's in the winter. Do you own any?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot with no body. I know that a cardigan has an open front, though.
[user]
What else can you tell me about them?
```
Response:
```
garment has no buttons and hangs open by design
```
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]
Can you give me more information about a divorce?
[assistant]
Sure! Divorce is essentially the termination of a marriage between two people.
[user]
How does one get a divorce?
[assistant]
Well, it varies from location to location, but usually a court has to sanction the divorce. What else would you like to know?
[user]
How long have people been getting divorced?
[assistant]
I'm not sure, but the reasons can vary from sexual incompatibility to lack of independence.
[user]
Do you have any statistics about divorce?
|
Not exactly, but one thing that people seem to confuse divorce with is annulment, which declares the marriage null and void.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Divorce should not be confused with annulment, which declares the marriage null and void; with legal separation or ''de jure'' separation (a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a ''de facto'' separation while remaining legally married) or with ''de facto separation'' (a process where the spouses informally stop cohabiting).
| 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:
```
Divorce should not be confused with annulment, which declares the marriage null and void; with legal separation or ''de jure'' separation (a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a ''de facto'' separation while remaining legally married) or with ''de facto separation'' (a process where the spouses informally stop cohabiting).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Can you give me more information about a divorce?
[assistant]
Sure! Divorce is essentially the termination of a marriage between two people.
[user]
How does one get a divorce?
[assistant]
Well, it varies from location to location, but usually a court has to sanction the divorce. What else would you like to know?
[user]
How long have people been getting divorced?
[assistant]
I'm not sure, but the reasons can vary from sexual incompatibility to lack of independence.
[user]
Do you have any statistics about divorce?
```
Response:
```
Not exactly, but one thing that people seem to confuse divorce with is annulment, which declares the marriage null and void.
```
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]
Bowling is a really fun hobby
[assistant]
That's the leisure activity or sport in which you throw or roll a bowling ball to a target right?
[user]
Yeah, it was pretty fun for me in high school, I'm not sure how well known it is though.
[assistant]
I just want to say that for throwing sports, bowling is one of the major ones.
[user]
Yea there arent many fully throwing based sports that are also solo
|
Did you ever play the pin-bowling version? Which is knocking over the pins at the end of the 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]
Bowling is a really fun hobby
[assistant]
That's the leisure activity or sport in which you throw or roll a bowling ball to a target right?
[user]
Yeah, it was pretty fun for me in high school, I'm not sure how well known it is though.
[assistant]
I just want to say that for throwing sports, bowling is one of the major ones.
[user]
Yea there arent many fully throwing based sports that are also solo
```
Response:
```
Did you ever play the pin-bowling version? Which is knocking over the pins at the end of the 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]
Do you like drawing? I find it to be relaxing personally
[assistant]
As I am a bot that is not applicable to me. But I can speak about it. Did you know that graphite pencils, crayons, chalk, pastels, markers , pen and ink and many others are instruments included ?
[user]
I heard of some of those before. I like to use pencils
[assistant]
Interesting. Have you ever used a marker pen? It can calso be called marking pen or fineliner. It is a pan with its own source of ink.
[user]
I have never heard of those. Do you know what is permanent marker?
[assistant]
Yes I do. This type of marker is a container with a core of absorbent material.
[user]
Oh okay, I will need to check that out then, that sounds perfect to use to draw
|
Yeah, the instruments used to draw are so widely available that it makes drawing is very common
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 wide availability of drawing instruments makes drawing one of the most common artistic activities.
| 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 wide availability of drawing instruments makes drawing one of the most common artistic activities.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you like drawing? I find it to be relaxing personally
[assistant]
As I am a bot that is not applicable to me. But I can speak about it. Did you know that graphite pencils, crayons, chalk, pastels, markers , pen and ink and many others are instruments included ?
[user]
I heard of some of those before. I like to use pencils
[assistant]
Interesting. Have you ever used a marker pen? It can calso be called marking pen or fineliner. It is a pan with its own source of ink.
[user]
I have never heard of those. Do you know what is permanent marker?
[assistant]
Yes I do. This type of marker is a container with a core of absorbent material.
[user]
Oh okay, I will need to check that out then, that sounds perfect to use to draw
```
Response:
```
Yeah, the instruments used to draw are so widely available that it makes drawing is very common
```
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 live in the South where I see dead Armadillos on the road quite often.
|
Me too. I see that all the time. All species of armadillo are native to the Americas, so we wouldn't be having this conversation if we were European.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
All species are native to the Americas, where they inhabit a variety of different environments.
| 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 species are native to the Americas, where they inhabit a variety of different environments.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I live in the South where I see dead Armadillos on the road quite often.
```
Response:
```
Me too. I see that all the time. All species of armadillo are native to the Americas, so we wouldn't be having this conversation if we were European.
```
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 McDonald's. They have some really good food, Do you know about them?
[assistant]
Yes I do, I know that it was established in 1940 in San Bernardino
[user]
Wow way back in the 40's? Thats wild. What kind of food did they have back then, was it the same stuff served today at McDonald's?
[assistant]
I am not sure about the food back then, but I know that the business was rechristened as a stand for hamburguers
[user]
Thats true I bet now they use more processed stuff. Was Ronald McDonald still around when they opened?
[assistant]
I can't confirm that. Do you like Ronald Mcdonald the mascot of mcDonald's?
[user]
I love him. What else do you know about McDonald's?
|
Micky D's is the largest restaurant chain in the world. It has almost 40 thousand outlets in over 100 countries as of 2016.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
McDonald's is the world's largest restaurant chain by revenue, serving over 69 million customers daily in over 100 countries across approximately 36,900 outlets as of 2016.
| 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:
```
McDonald's is the world's largest restaurant chain by revenue, serving over 69 million customers daily in over 100 countries across approximately 36,900 outlets as of 2016.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I really love McDonald's. They have some really good food, Do you know about them?
[assistant]
Yes I do, I know that it was established in 1940 in San Bernardino
[user]
Wow way back in the 40's? Thats wild. What kind of food did they have back then, was it the same stuff served today at McDonald's?
[assistant]
I am not sure about the food back then, but I know that the business was rechristened as a stand for hamburguers
[user]
Thats true I bet now they use more processed stuff. Was Ronald McDonald still around when they opened?
[assistant]
I can't confirm that. Do you like Ronald Mcdonald the mascot of mcDonald's?
[user]
I love him. What else do you know about McDonald's?
```
Response:
```
Micky D's is the largest restaurant chain in the world. It has almost 40 thousand outlets in over 100 countries as of 2016.
```
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 love watching horror films. What's your favorite horror film?
|
I love them too, I love how macabre and supernatural they can be. I have many favorites!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 macabre and the supernatural are frequent themes.
| 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 macabre and the supernatural are frequent themes.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi! I love watching horror films. What's your favorite horror film?
```
Response:
```
I love them too, I love how macabre and supernatural they can be. I have many favorites!
```
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 music and dancing
[assistant]
Since you love music, have you ever been to a music festival? There are some festivals focused on women's music
[user]
I have never, I imagine going to a woman's music festival would be pretty nice.
|
Nope, but I would really like to. I'm scared of getting too hot, it's outdoors so there's a chance.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
They are commonly held outdoors, with tents or roofed temporary stages for the performers.
| 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:
```
They are commonly held outdoors, with tents or roofed temporary stages for the performers.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I really love music and dancing
[assistant]
Since you love music, have you ever been to a music festival? There are some festivals focused on women's music
[user]
I have never, I imagine going to a woman's music festival would be pretty nice.
```
Response:
```
Nope, but I would really like to. I'm scared of getting too hot, it's outdoors so there's a chance.
```
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.
|
They originally skied as an aid for travel, though now skiing is mostly a recreational 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
|
Originally intended as an aid to travel over snow, they are now mainly used recreationally in the sport of skiing.
| 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:
```
Originally intended as an aid to travel over snow, they are now mainly used recreationally in the sport of skiing.
```
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.
```
Response:
```
They originally skied as an aid for travel, though now skiing is mostly a recreational 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 have two dogs! Do you have any dogs, or a favorite breed?
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't really have favorites. Did you know that they are the terrestrial carnivore that is the most abundant widely?
[user]
Very interesting. what else do you know ?
[assistant]
Well, I alos know that the domestic dog is part of the Canis genus
[user]
Good to know that. Anything else you can teach me ?
[assistant]
Sure, did you know tha the direct dog ancestor is actually extinct ?
[user]
I didn't know that. I can see that some dogs are very small while others are very large
[assistant]
I can see it too. Dogs can also really vary in shape and size.
[user]
Yes, small breeds like Chihuahuas to bigger breeds like a Great Dane or Saint Bernards. There are some huge dogs!
|
Yeah, dogs also vary in colors
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Dogs vary widely in shape, size and colors.
| 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:
```
Dogs vary widely in shape, size and colors.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have two dogs! Do you have any dogs, or a favorite breed?
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't really have favorites. Did you know that they are the terrestrial carnivore that is the most abundant widely?
[user]
Very interesting. what else do you know ?
[assistant]
Well, I alos know that the domestic dog is part of the Canis genus
[user]
Good to know that. Anything else you can teach me ?
[assistant]
Sure, did you know tha the direct dog ancestor is actually extinct ?
[user]
I didn't know that. I can see that some dogs are very small while others are very large
[assistant]
I can see it too. Dogs can also really vary in shape and size.
[user]
Yes, small breeds like Chihuahuas to bigger breeds like a Great Dane or Saint Bernards. There are some huge dogs!
```
Response:
```
Yeah, dogs also vary in colors
```
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 ride a bike.
[assistant]
Do you ride for transportation, recreation or sport?
[user]
I ride for transportation.
|
People who cycle are called ''bikers'' or'' cyclists''
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
People engaged in cycling are referred to as ''cyclists'', ''bikers'', or less commonly, as ''bicyclists''.
| 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:
```
People engaged in cycling are referred to as ''cyclists'', ''bikers'', or less commonly, as ''bicyclists''.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I ride a bike.
[assistant]
Do you ride for transportation, recreation or sport?
[user]
I ride for transportation.
```
Response:
```
People who cycle are called ''bikers'' or'' cyclists''
```
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 peanuts
[assistant]
Well, as far as I know a peanut is classified as a legume crop
[user]
Please how do they look like
|
I am not sure about that. But I kow that they are grown for the edible seed mainly
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 peanut, also known as the groundnut and the goober and taxonomically classified as Arachis hypogaea, is a legume crop grown mainly for its edible seeds.
| 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 peanut, also known as the groundnut and the goober and taxonomically classified as Arachis hypogaea, is a legume crop grown mainly for its edible seeds.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
What are peanuts
[assistant]
Well, as far as I know a peanut is classified as a legume crop
[user]
Please how do they look like
```
Response:
```
I am not sure about that. But I kow that they are grown for the edible seed mainly
```
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 reading novels do you?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't read, but did you know that the concept of novels goes back to classical Greece?
[user]
that is surprising, that people could even read back then, before it was simple to publish a book, that is crazy
[assistant]
Well, they are usually books, but they can be any long work of fiction.
[user]
that is true, probably more simple, but still sort of impressive
|
And there's also a word in Italian for a story that is shorter than a novel. Do you know of it?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 latter, an Italian word for a short story to distinguish it from a novel, has been used in English since the 18th century for a work that falls somewhere in between.
| 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 latter, an Italian word for a short story to distinguish it from a novel, has been used in English since the 18th century for a work that falls somewhere in between.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
i like reading novels do you?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't read, but did you know that the concept of novels goes back to classical Greece?
[user]
that is surprising, that people could even read back then, before it was simple to publish a book, that is crazy
[assistant]
Well, they are usually books, but they can be any long work of fiction.
[user]
that is true, probably more simple, but still sort of impressive
```
Response:
```
And there's also a word in Italian for a story that is shorter than a novel. Do you know of it?
```
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, accounting is very fun, I like to work with numbers.
|
Accounting is the processing and communication of financial information. It seems like serious stuff!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Accounting or accountancy is the measurement, processing, and communication of financial information about economic entities such as businesses and corporations.
| 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:
```
Accounting or accountancy is the measurement, processing, and communication of financial information about economic entities such as businesses and corporations.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hello, accounting is very fun, I like to work with numbers.
```
Response:
```
Accounting is the processing and communication of financial information. It seems like serious stuff!
```
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
|
Interesting. Swimming is actually the propulsion of the body forward by repetitive body motion
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Human swimming typically consists of repeating a specific body motion or swimming stroke to propel that body forward.
| 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:
```
Human swimming typically consists of repeating a specific body motion or swimming stroke to propel that body forward.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I enjoy swimming ,especially the stroke style
```
Response:
```
Interesting. Swimming is actually the propulsion of the body forward by repetitive body motion
```
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 reading novels do you?
|
As a bot, I can't read, but did you know that the concept of novels goes back to classical 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
|
The genre has been described as having ''a continuous and comprehensive history of about two thousand years,'' with its origins in classical Greece and Rome, in medieval and early modern romance, and in the tradition of the novella.
| 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 been described as having ''a continuous and comprehensive history of about two thousand years,'' with its origins in classical Greece and Rome, in medieval and early modern romance, and in the tradition of the novella.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
i like reading novels do you?
```
Response:
```
As a bot, I can't read, but did you know that the concept of novels goes back to classical 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]
I like to cook a big meal and enjoy it with my family. Do you like to cook?
|
I am not the greatest cook but I like to grill outside.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Cooking techniques and ingredients vary widely across the world, from grilling food over an open fire to using electric stoves, to baking in various types of ovens, reflecting unique environmental, economic, and cultural traditions and trends.
| 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:
```
Cooking techniques and ingredients vary widely across the world, from grilling food over an open fire to using electric stoves, to baking in various types of ovens, reflecting unique environmental, economic, and cultural traditions and trends.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like to cook a big meal and enjoy it with my family. Do you like to cook?
```
Response:
```
I am not the greatest cook but I like to grill outside.
```
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 took an accounting course at school. I didn't think I'd be any good at it, but I came in second in my class!
[assistant]
That's awesome! People call accounting the language of business.
[user]
It is quite interesting. My sister-in-law is an accountant. She works for a big company.
[assistant]
Oh, that's cool. Accounting is also sometimes call financial reporting.
[user]
I found it interesting to learn to work my way around a balance sheet. It's like learning a new language!
|
How interesting! So, accounting includes several fields, like financial, management, tax, and cost accounting, along with external auditing. What's your favorite?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Accounting can be divided into several fields including financial accounting, management accounting, external auditing, tax accounting and cost accounting.
| 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:
```
Accounting can be divided into several fields including financial accounting, management accounting, external auditing, tax accounting and cost accounting.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I took an accounting course at school. I didn't think I'd be any good at it, but I came in second in my class!
[assistant]
That's awesome! People call accounting the language of business.
[user]
It is quite interesting. My sister-in-law is an accountant. She works for a big company.
[assistant]
Oh, that's cool. Accounting is also sometimes call financial reporting.
[user]
I found it interesting to learn to work my way around a balance sheet. It's like learning a new language!
```
Response:
```
How interesting! So, accounting includes several fields, like financial, management, tax, and cost accounting, along with external auditing. What's your favorite?
```
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 reading the Harry Potter books, even though they're so long they're enjoyable to read.
[assistant]
Cool, do you enjoy them because they're a series of fantasy novels?
[user]
Yeah, actually they're probably a really good gateway into fantasy. My favorite is the fourth, do you know it?
[assistant]
Yes, it is the Goblet of Fire.
[user]
Can you tell me more about the Prisoner of Azkaban? I'm a bit rusty on that one.
[assistant]
Of course, the Prisoner of Azkaban is the third novel in the series!
[user]
And what are the major plot elements?
[assistant]
I'm not familiar with the plot points but I know its about Harry Potter during his third year at Hogwarts.
[user]
Oh yeah now I remember, it's a good one for sure. Have you heard of Isaac Asimov? He's my other favorite author.
|
Yeah, he's known for his popular science and science fiction works.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
He was known for his works of science fiction and popular science.
| 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:
```
He was known for his works of science fiction and popular science.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like reading the Harry Potter books, even though they're so long they're enjoyable to read.
[assistant]
Cool, do you enjoy them because they're a series of fantasy novels?
[user]
Yeah, actually they're probably a really good gateway into fantasy. My favorite is the fourth, do you know it?
[assistant]
Yes, it is the Goblet of Fire.
[user]
Can you tell me more about the Prisoner of Azkaban? I'm a bit rusty on that one.
[assistant]
Of course, the Prisoner of Azkaban is the third novel in the series!
[user]
And what are the major plot elements?
[assistant]
I'm not familiar with the plot points but I know its about Harry Potter during his third year at Hogwarts.
[user]
Oh yeah now I remember, it's a good one for sure. Have you heard of Isaac Asimov? He's my other favorite author.
```
Response:
```
Yeah, he's known for his popular science and science fiction works.
```
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 have red hair?
[assistant]
I am a bot so that question doesn't apply to me. Did you know that red hair naturally occurs in only 1-2% of the population ?
[user]
I didn't know it was this rare. What else do you know about hair ?
[assistant]
Well, I know that the darker the hair, the more hair follicles a person has in their scalp
[user]
Oh! I did not know that! Did you know that the viking population had red hair?
[assistant]
I didn't have that information. Did you know tha changing the color of your hair is caled hair dyeing or hair coloring ?
[user]
I have colored my hair. One time I did a really bad job and a lot of my hair fell out. Have you ever colored your hair?
[assistant]
Yes I am a bot that would be imposible. Did you know you could have done it professionally as well?
[user]
I have had it done in the salon and at home. I tried to bleach it blond once by myself and it turned yellow
|
I see, is your hair long? Long hair is found attractive by men and women 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
|
Long lustrous female hair is generally rated attractive by both men and women across 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:
```
Long lustrous female hair is generally rated attractive by both men and women across cultures.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi! Do you have red hair?
[assistant]
I am a bot so that question doesn't apply to me. Did you know that red hair naturally occurs in only 1-2% of the population ?
[user]
I didn't know it was this rare. What else do you know about hair ?
[assistant]
Well, I know that the darker the hair, the more hair follicles a person has in their scalp
[user]
Oh! I did not know that! Did you know that the viking population had red hair?
[assistant]
I didn't have that information. Did you know tha changing the color of your hair is caled hair dyeing or hair coloring ?
[user]
I have colored my hair. One time I did a really bad job and a lot of my hair fell out. Have you ever colored your hair?
[assistant]
Yes I am a bot that would be imposible. Did you know you could have done it professionally as well?
[user]
I have had it done in the salon and at home. I tried to bleach it blond once by myself and it turned yellow
```
Response:
```
I see, is your hair long? Long hair is found attractive by men and women 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 love dogs, very incredible species,I think wolves especially are fascinating.
[assistant]
Yeah - apparently the extant gray wolf is the closest living relative of the dog.
[user]
I would absolutely believe it, there is so much overlap between the domestic dog and wolf now there is almost an indistinguishable line if breed them properly.
|
Interesting. Did you know that according to the archeological record, dog remains were buried alongside humans over 14 thousand years ago?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 archaeological record shows the first undisputed dog remains buried beside humans 14,700 years ago, with disputed remains occurring 36,000 years ago.
| 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 archaeological record shows the first undisputed dog remains buried beside humans 14,700 years ago, with disputed remains occurring 36,000 years ago.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love dogs, very incredible species,I think wolves especially are fascinating.
[assistant]
Yeah - apparently the extant gray wolf is the closest living relative of the dog.
[user]
I would absolutely believe it, there is so much overlap between the domestic dog and wolf now there is almost an indistinguishable line if breed them properly.
```
Response:
```
Interesting. Did you know that according to the archeological record, dog remains were buried alongside humans over 14 thousand years ago?
```
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 Walking Dead TV series. Do you follow it?
[assistant]
I don't follow it but I know the main lead is Rick Grimes, a sheriff deputy who is played by Andrew Lincoln.
[user]
Exactly, Do you think the show has diminished over time though? Not as great as the original series.
|
I disagree here as the show had the most 18 to 49 years old viewers of any show when the third season started.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Beginning with its third season, ''The Walking Dead'' has attracted the most 18- to 49-year-old viewers of any cable or broadcast television series.
| 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:
```
Beginning with its third season, ''The Walking Dead'' has attracted the most 18- to 49-year-old viewers of any cable or broadcast television series.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I am a huge fan of the Walking Dead TV series. Do you follow it?
[assistant]
I don't follow it but I know the main lead is Rick Grimes, a sheriff deputy who is played by Andrew Lincoln.
[user]
Exactly, Do you think the show has diminished over time though? Not as great as the original series.
```
Response:
```
I disagree here as the show had the most 18 to 49 years old viewers of any show when the third season started.
```
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 green, its my favourite colur
[assistant]
That's cool. Some minerals, like emerald, are green. For emeralds its due to the chromium content.
[user]
Is it a primary colour?
|
Not in the subtractive color system. But in the RGB system used for television it is used.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 subtractive color systems, used in painting and color printing, it is created by a combination of yellow and blue, or yellow and cyan; in the RGB color model, used on television and computer screens, it is one of the additive primary colors, along with red and blue, which are mixed in different combinations to create all other colors.
| 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 subtractive color systems, used in painting and color printing, it is created by a combination of yellow and blue, or yellow and cyan; in the RGB color model, used on television and computer screens, it is one of the additive primary colors, along with red and blue, which are mixed in different combinations to create all other colors.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love green, its my favourite colur
[assistant]
That's cool. Some minerals, like emerald, are green. For emeralds its due to the chromium content.
[user]
Is it a primary colour?
```
Response:
```
Not in the subtractive color system. But in the RGB system used for television it is used.
```
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 the color green as it is so present in nature. What is your favorite color?
[assistant]
I don't have a favorite, being a bot. That said, I know that green sits between yellow and blue on the visible light spectrum.
[user]
I always find this interesting. What else can you tell me about the color green?
[assistant]
Well, I can tell you that most plants in nature are green, due to photosynthesis.
[user]
Photosynthesis is an interesting process. Can you tell me more about it?
|
It's a process plants use to live - it converts light into chemical energy that they use to grow and survive.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy into chemical energy that can later be released to fuel the organisms' activities (energy transformation).
| 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:
```
Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy into chemical energy that can later be released to fuel the organisms' activities (energy transformation).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like the color green as it is so present in nature. What is your favorite color?
[assistant]
I don't have a favorite, being a bot. That said, I know that green sits between yellow and blue on the visible light spectrum.
[user]
I always find this interesting. What else can you tell me about the color green?
[assistant]
Well, I can tell you that most plants in nature are green, due to photosynthesis.
[user]
Photosynthesis is an interesting process. Can you tell me more about it?
```
Response:
```
It's a process plants use to live - it converts light into chemical energy that they use to grow and survive.
```
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 studying to be a Radiology tech currently.
[assistant]
wow, really, Radiology is the science that uses medical imaging to diagnose and sometimes also treat diseases
[user]
Yes it fascinates me that you can see so much with it.
|
Oh I see. I know that Diagnostic Radiologists are doctors who are specially trained. They "read" and interpret the images, and make a report. The report includes their findings or their diagnosis.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 Diagnostic Radiologist, a specially trained doctor, then interprets or ''reads'' the images and produces a report of their findings and impression or diagnosis.
| 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 Diagnostic Radiologist, a specially trained doctor, then interprets or ''reads'' the images and produces a report of their findings and impression or diagnosis.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I'm studying to be a Radiology tech currently.
[assistant]
wow, really, Radiology is the science that uses medical imaging to diagnose and sometimes also treat diseases
[user]
Yes it fascinates me that you can see so much with it.
```
Response:
```
Oh I see. I know that Diagnostic Radiologists are doctors who are specially trained. They "read" and interpret the images, and make a report. The report includes their findings or their diagnosis.
```
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 dont like bees because they sting
[assistant]
Oh, I see. Bees do have a role in pollination, as well as honey and beeswax.
[user]
Yeah they give us honey and i like that atleast
|
Well, research says that bees are a monophyletic lineage within the superfamily Apoidea and are presently considered a clade, called Anthophila.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 a monophyletic lineage within the superfamily Apoidea and are presently considered a clade, called Anthophila.
| 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 a monophyletic lineage within the superfamily Apoidea and are presently considered a clade, called Anthophila.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I dont like bees because they sting
[assistant]
Oh, I see. Bees do have a role in pollination, as well as honey and beeswax.
[user]
Yeah they give us honey and i like that atleast
```
Response:
```
Well, research says that bees are a monophyletic lineage within the superfamily Apoidea and are presently considered a clade, called Anthophila.
```
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 started learning Japanese a couple of years ago
[assistant]
There does not seem to be a lot of history on Japanese language or even a date it first appeared.
[user]
I know I homeschooled my daughter and she was very interested, we learned to speak some together
[assistant]
It apparently has a lot of loan words from English, as well.
[user]
Yeah, it was still pretty hard for me to learn. My daughter was much better at it.
[assistant]
Japanese has properties like a pure vowel system and simple phonotactics.
[user]
It is really hard and the writing of Japanese is even harder, The language is nice to listen to but difficult to speak
|
I imagine it is difficult to speak but it sounds so romantic when you hear it spoken.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Little is known of the language's prehistory, or when it first appeared in Japan.
| 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:
```
Little is known of the language's prehistory, or when it first appeared in Japan.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I started learning Japanese a couple of years ago
[assistant]
There does not seem to be a lot of history on Japanese language or even a date it first appeared.
[user]
I know I homeschooled my daughter and she was very interested, we learned to speak some together
[assistant]
It apparently has a lot of loan words from English, as well.
[user]
Yeah, it was still pretty hard for me to learn. My daughter was much better at it.
[assistant]
Japanese has properties like a pure vowel system and simple phonotactics.
[user]
It is really hard and the writing of Japanese is even harder, The language is nice to listen to but difficult to speak
```
Response:
```
I imagine it is difficult to speak but it sounds so romantic when you hear it spoken.
```
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 reading the Harry Potter books, even though they're so long they're enjoyable to read.
[assistant]
Cool, do you enjoy them because they're a series of fantasy novels?
[user]
Yeah, actually they're probably a really good gateway into fantasy. My favorite is the fourth, do you know it?
[assistant]
Yes, it is the Goblet of Fire.
[user]
Can you tell me more about the Prisoner of Azkaban? I'm a bit rusty on that one.
|
Of course, the Prisoner of Azkaban is the third novel in the series!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a fantasy novel written by British author J. K. Rowling and the third novel in the ''Harry Potter'' series.
| 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:
```
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a fantasy novel written by British author J. K. Rowling and the third novel in the ''Harry Potter'' series.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like reading the Harry Potter books, even though they're so long they're enjoyable to read.
[assistant]
Cool, do you enjoy them because they're a series of fantasy novels?
[user]
Yeah, actually they're probably a really good gateway into fantasy. My favorite is the fourth, do you know it?
[assistant]
Yes, it is the Goblet of Fire.
[user]
Can you tell me more about the Prisoner of Azkaban? I'm a bit rusty on that one.
```
Response:
```
Of course, the Prisoner of Azkaban is the third novel in the series!
```
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!!
|
Tell him I said hi! Henry's job was first started by a mathmetician named Luca Pacioli in 1494!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 modern field was established by the Italian mathematician Luca Pacioli in 1494.
| 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 modern field was established by the Italian mathematician Luca Pacioli in 1494.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have an accountant named henry!!
```
Response:
```
Tell him I said hi! Henry's job was first started by a mathmetician named Luca Pacioli in 1494!
```
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 hated accounting in college, I was terrible at it.
[assistant]
Oh well. I know of accounting as the processing, measurement and reporting of financial information to some sort of economic entity. What accounting material did you do in college?
[user]
Only took two course for my business degree because it was required.
[assistant]
Financial reporting and accounting as synonymous as a field of study.
[user]
OK. I just learned basic knowledge, but it was a brutal year, to say the least.
[assistant]
I see. Well, as far as accounting goes, there's a review board that maintains the generally accepted accounting principles in the US. It's called the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
[user]
Oh, OK. Does it have a history?
|
Its an interesting subject though.All you need is to understand the principles of entry. Credit the giver,Debit the receiver states by the' (AICPA) Accounting Principles Board (APB) on
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 FASB replaced the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) Accounting Principles Board (APB) on July 1, 1973.
| 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 FASB replaced the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) Accounting Principles Board (APB) on July 1, 1973.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I hated accounting in college, I was terrible at it.
[assistant]
Oh well. I know of accounting as the processing, measurement and reporting of financial information to some sort of economic entity. What accounting material did you do in college?
[user]
Only took two course for my business degree because it was required.
[assistant]
Financial reporting and accounting as synonymous as a field of study.
[user]
OK. I just learned basic knowledge, but it was a brutal year, to say the least.
[assistant]
I see. Well, as far as accounting goes, there's a review board that maintains the generally accepted accounting principles in the US. It's called the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
[user]
Oh, OK. Does it have a history?
```
Response:
```
Its an interesting subject though.All you need is to understand the principles of entry. Credit the giver,Debit the receiver states by the' (AICPA) Accounting Principles Board (APB) on
```
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 Italian cuisine
[assistant]
Oh do you! It has roots that stretch to antiquity!
[user]
What is your favorite Italian dish?
|
Oh I don't have a favourite, I can't say I have ever eaten! You see, I'm a bot. I do know that outside Italy there are other variations. They might include veal, chicken, or vegetable filling.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Other variations found outside Italy may include chicken, veal, or another type of meat cutlet or vegetable filling.
| 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:
```
Other variations found outside Italy may include chicken, veal, or another type of meat cutlet or vegetable filling.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love Italian cuisine
[assistant]
Oh do you! It has roots that stretch to antiquity!
[user]
What is your favorite Italian dish?
```
Response:
```
Oh I don't have a favourite, I can't say I have ever eaten! You see, I'm a bot. I do know that outside Italy there are other variations. They might include veal, chicken, or vegetable filling.
```
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.
|
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.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
EuroBasket, also commonly referred to as the ''European Basketball Championship'', is the main international basketball competition contested biannually by the men's national teams governed by FIBA Europe, the European zone within the International Basketball Federation.
| 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:
```
EuroBasket, also commonly referred to as the ''European Basketball Championship'', is the main international basketball competition contested biannually by the men's national teams governed by FIBA Europe, the European zone within the International Basketball Federation.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Are you a fan of EuroBasket? I am not, but I like the NBA and hear of Luka Donkic.
```
Response:
```
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.
```
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]
New York City is quite impressive
|
Yes! Did you know that by population, it's the biggest American city?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 City of New York, often called New York City or simply New York, is the most populous city in 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:
```
The City of New York, often called New York City or simply New York, is the most populous city in the United States.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
New York City is quite impressive
```
Response:
```
Yes! Did you know that by population, it's the biggest American city?
```
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]
Everyone in my family has to wear glasses except for me. Do you wear them?
[assistant]
I am a bot, so no glasses for me. But speaking of glasses, do your family members use reading glasses or for nearsightedness?
[user]
I think is for reading. What else do you know about them?
[assistant]
They are traditionally known as eye glass or spectacles and they consist of glass of hard plastic which is mounted in a fame that holds them over a person's eyes, using the bride of the nose and the ears.
[user]
That's interesting! How long have they been around?
[assistant]
I'm not sure when they were invented but some people wear safety glasses to provide eye protection against flying debris or for lab technicians. These glasses protect the sides of the eyes as well as the front.
[user]
Oh yeah, I've had to wear them in chemistry before. Aren't they closer to goggles?
[assistant]
I can't confirm that to you. But I know that there are also safety glasses that are used for protection against visible and also near visible radiation or light
[user]
Oh wow, I thought they were just for debris!
|
They are also worn for sports, for protection, such as squash.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Glasses are worn for eye protection in some sports, such as squash.
| 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:
```
Glasses are worn for eye protection in some sports, such as squash.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Everyone in my family has to wear glasses except for me. Do you wear them?
[assistant]
I am a bot, so no glasses for me. But speaking of glasses, do your family members use reading glasses or for nearsightedness?
[user]
I think is for reading. What else do you know about them?
[assistant]
They are traditionally known as eye glass or spectacles and they consist of glass of hard plastic which is mounted in a fame that holds them over a person's eyes, using the bride of the nose and the ears.
[user]
That's interesting! How long have they been around?
[assistant]
I'm not sure when they were invented but some people wear safety glasses to provide eye protection against flying debris or for lab technicians. These glasses protect the sides of the eyes as well as the front.
[user]
Oh yeah, I've had to wear them in chemistry before. Aren't they closer to goggles?
[assistant]
I can't confirm that to you. But I know that there are also safety glasses that are used for protection against visible and also near visible radiation or light
[user]
Oh wow, I thought they were just for debris!
```
Response:
```
They are also worn for sports, for protection, such as squash.
```
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 favorite color is green. I really love the different variations of it. How about you?
[assistant]
I don't but it reminds me of how it falls between yellow and blue on the visible spectrum.
[user]
It makes me think of spring and summer, when the grass is nice and green and the trees are full.
[assistant]
I see, have you heard how its evoked by a light with a dominant wavelength of around 495570 nm?
[user]
No, those are technical details I had no ideas about. So green is a part of light right, what else can you tell me?
[assistant]
Ever hear of the subtractive color system? If not, it's used in color printing and painting and green there is formed from blue and yellow combining.
[user]
Real scientific, I guess that is why there are different shades of green.
|
Yes and by far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, which you see in trees and plants
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
By far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, the chemical by which plants photosynthesize and convert sunlight into chemical energy.
| 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:
```
By far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, the chemical by which plants photosynthesize and convert sunlight into chemical energy.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
My favorite color is green. I really love the different variations of it. How about you?
[assistant]
I don't but it reminds me of how it falls between yellow and blue on the visible spectrum.
[user]
It makes me think of spring and summer, when the grass is nice and green and the trees are full.
[assistant]
I see, have you heard how its evoked by a light with a dominant wavelength of around 495570 nm?
[user]
No, those are technical details I had no ideas about. So green is a part of light right, what else can you tell me?
[assistant]
Ever hear of the subtractive color system? If not, it's used in color printing and painting and green there is formed from blue and yellow combining.
[user]
Real scientific, I guess that is why there are different shades of green.
```
Response:
```
Yes and by far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, which you see in trees and plants
```
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 about drum kit
|
A drum kit is also called a drum set, which contains percussion instruments.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 drum kit — also called a drum set, trap set, or simply drums — is a collection of drums and other percussion instruments, typically cymbals, which are set up on stands to be played by a single player, with drumsticks held in both hands, and the feet operating pedals that control the hi-hat cymbal and the beater for the bass drum.
| 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 drum kit — also called a drum set, trap set, or simply drums — is a collection of drums and other percussion instruments, typically cymbals, which are set up on stands to be played by a single player, with drumsticks held in both hands, and the feet operating pedals that control the hi-hat cymbal and the beater for the bass drum.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
did you know about drum kit
```
Response:
```
A drum kit is also called a drum set, which contains percussion instruments.
```
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 think Elvis Presley is truly still the king after all this time?
[assistant]
I couldn't say, personally, but in general he is regarded as one of the 20th century's biggest cultural icons.
[user]
Personally I always preferred Johnny Cash over Elvis but you cannot deny that he had the moves
[assistant]
Well, he was one of the pioneers of rockabilly music.
[user]
Do you know of any of this songs?
|
My favorite was his first single called ''Heartbreak Hotel''.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Presley's first RCA single, ''Heartbreak Hotel'', was released in January 1956 and became a number one hit in 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:
```
Presley's first RCA single, ''Heartbreak Hotel'', was released in January 1956 and became a number one hit in the United States.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you think Elvis Presley is truly still the king after all this time?
[assistant]
I couldn't say, personally, but in general he is regarded as one of the 20th century's biggest cultural icons.
[user]
Personally I always preferred Johnny Cash over Elvis but you cannot deny that he had the moves
[assistant]
Well, he was one of the pioneers of rockabilly music.
[user]
Do you know of any of this songs?
```
Response:
```
My favorite was his first single called ''Heartbreak Hotel''.
```
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 played a bit of American Football in college, how about you?
[assistant]
I'm a bot with no body, so I can't play American football, but I know that it evolved from association football and rugby.
[user]
Which do you think is the more rougher, rugby or American football?
|
I wouldn't know, but in rugby the player that is tackled with the ball has to release it, so the opposition can get it then.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
If the tackled player is on the ground, the ball must be released, allowing any other player (including the opposition) to pick up the ball (usually a ruck forms) and the play continues.
| 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:
```
If the tackled player is on the ground, the ball must be released, allowing any other player (including the opposition) to pick up the ball (usually a ruck forms) and the play continues.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I played a bit of American Football in college, how about you?
[assistant]
I'm a bot with no body, so I can't play American football, but I know that it evolved from association football and rugby.
[user]
Which do you think is the more rougher, rugby or American football?
```
Response:
```
I wouldn't know, but in rugby the player that is tackled with the ball has to release it, so the opposition can get it then.
```
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 hunt but my husband does. He hunts mainly deer and turkey. Do you hunt?
[assistant]
I do not hunt, but most people who do hunt do it in order to get food, to get rid of predators, for trade or as a recreation.
[user]
My husband does it for food. He doesn't like to buy chemical-laden meat, so he kills the animal/bird and freezes the meat. I'm vegetarian, so I don't partake in any of this!
|
How funny. I'm a vegetarian, too! People become vegetarian for health reasons, economic ones, preferences , cultural reasons and more. It is good that he eats the meat, to me that is different than people just doing it for fun.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Other motivations for vegetarianism are health-related, political, environmental, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or personal preference.
| 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:
```
Other motivations for vegetarianism are health-related, political, environmental, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or personal preference.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I don't hunt but my husband does. He hunts mainly deer and turkey. Do you hunt?
[assistant]
I do not hunt, but most people who do hunt do it in order to get food, to get rid of predators, for trade or as a recreation.
[user]
My husband does it for food. He doesn't like to buy chemical-laden meat, so he kills the animal/bird and freezes the meat. I'm vegetarian, so I don't partake in any of this!
```
Response:
```
How funny. I'm a vegetarian, too! People become vegetarian for health reasons, economic ones, preferences , cultural reasons and more. It is good that he eats the meat, to me that is different than people just doing it for fun.
```
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 lizards, we had an Iguana years ago, do you like them?
[assistant]
I am a bot so I don't have preferences. But I know some facts about lizards. Did you know that they can range from a few centimeters in size to 3 meters long ?
[user]
I didn't know it got so big. What lizard is 3 meter long ?
[assistant]
Well, I know that the Komodo dragon is a lizard that is 3 meters long
[user]
Amazing. And what are the smaller ones ?
[assistant]
I can tell you that chameleons and geckos are a few centimeters in size
[user]
Very interesting. What else do you know ?
[assistant]
Well, I also know that lizards are mostly quadrupedal and run sideways
[user]
I have seen those in the desert, they are actually kind of scary, they also stand up on 2 legs, like little demons running after you
|
I see, there are also the ones that have no legs, only a body that resembles one of a snake
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Others are legless, and have long snake-like bodies.
| 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:
```
Others are legless, and have long snake-like bodies.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like lizards, we had an Iguana years ago, do you like them?
[assistant]
I am a bot so I don't have preferences. But I know some facts about lizards. Did you know that they can range from a few centimeters in size to 3 meters long ?
[user]
I didn't know it got so big. What lizard is 3 meter long ?
[assistant]
Well, I know that the Komodo dragon is a lizard that is 3 meters long
[user]
Amazing. And what are the smaller ones ?
[assistant]
I can tell you that chameleons and geckos are a few centimeters in size
[user]
Very interesting. What else do you know ?
[assistant]
Well, I also know that lizards are mostly quadrupedal and run sideways
[user]
I have seen those in the desert, they are actually kind of scary, they also stand up on 2 legs, like little demons running after you
```
Response:
```
I see, there are also the ones that have no legs, only a body that resembles one of a snake
```
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 was discovery channel formed?
[assistant]
In 1985, but you can refer to it as simply Discovery.
[user]
Is it government owned?
[assistant]
No actually, it is television property of Discovery Communications, a publicly traded company.
[user]
Thats awesome. Who founded the company?
[assistant]
I don't know, but the CEO of Discovery Communications is David Zaslav.
[user]
have they always focused on what they currently air or they restrustured and changed focus in between
|
Well, at first they showed documentaries mostly about science, but by the 2010s they were showing reality shows and pseudo-scientific content.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 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]
When was discovery channel formed?
[assistant]
In 1985, but you can refer to it as simply Discovery.
[user]
Is it government owned?
[assistant]
No actually, it is television property of Discovery Communications, a publicly traded company.
[user]
Thats awesome. Who founded the company?
[assistant]
I don't know, but the CEO of Discovery Communications is David Zaslav.
[user]
have they always focused on what they currently air or they restrustured and changed focus in between
```
Response:
```
Well, at first they showed documentaries mostly about science, but by the 2010s they were showing reality shows and pseudo-scientific content.
```
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 use instagram a lot. I think it's a good way to see what friends are up to.
[assistant]
Is that the internet based photo-sharing app that allows users to share pictures and videos either publicly or privately to followers?
[user]
Yes it is. Do you know when it was created?
[assistant]
It was created in October of 2010 by Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, and it originally launched exclusively for the iOS operating system.
[user]
What company bought it? I know they sold but I don't know who bought it and for how much.
|
Instagram 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.
|
Yes
|
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 use instagram a lot. I think it's a good way to see what friends are up to.
[assistant]
Is that the internet based photo-sharing app that allows users to share pictures and videos either publicly or privately to followers?
[user]
Yes it is. Do you know when it was created?
[assistant]
It was created in October of 2010 by Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, and it originally launched exclusively for the iOS operating system.
[user]
What company bought it? I know they sold but I don't know who bought it and for how much.
```
Response:
```
Instagram 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]
I just ate lunch and had some really good fries.
[assistant]
Fries comes by different names depending on the English. North American calls it French fries but British English refers to it as chips.
[user]
Oh that's new I never knew that. Do the other countries add something other than ketchup?
[assistant]
Yes, other countries use different condiments or toppings on the fries. Some examples would be vinegar and mayonnaise.
[user]
I guess you get the full flavor that way. Ketchup and potato chips go well together too. I like the crinkle cut fries too.
[assistant]
I see. They can have more toppings like those found in poutine or chili cheese.
[user]
Haven't tried that . The average American eats 30 pounds of French Fries a year believe it or not !
|
Wow, that is alot! I sometimes prepare the baked variant not so much because it is lower in fat but because it is easier and less messy.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 baked variant of the French fry (''oven chips'') uses less or even no oil.
| 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 baked variant of the French fry (''oven chips'') uses less or even no oil.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I just ate lunch and had some really good fries.
[assistant]
Fries comes by different names depending on the English. North American calls it French fries but British English refers to it as chips.
[user]
Oh that's new I never knew that. Do the other countries add something other than ketchup?
[assistant]
Yes, other countries use different condiments or toppings on the fries. Some examples would be vinegar and mayonnaise.
[user]
I guess you get the full flavor that way. Ketchup and potato chips go well together too. I like the crinkle cut fries too.
[assistant]
I see. They can have more toppings like those found in poutine or chili cheese.
[user]
Haven't tried that . The average American eats 30 pounds of French Fries a year believe it or not !
```
Response:
```
Wow, that is alot! I sometimes prepare the baked variant not so much because it is lower in fat but because it is easier and less messy.
```
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 signed up for swimming lessons! I've always wanted to learn how to swim!
[assistant]
Awesome. A lot of countries require the children to have a minimun level of swimming by the ending of their primary education
[user]
Interesting! Do you know some swimming techniques, like the back stroke?
|
There's backstroke and butterfly, most children learn starting with freestyle. Starting lessons early can help their 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
|
Children are often given swimming lessons, which serve to develop swimming technique and confidence.
| 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:
```
Children are often given swimming lessons, which serve to develop swimming technique and confidence.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I just signed up for swimming lessons! I've always wanted to learn how to swim!
[assistant]
Awesome. A lot of countries require the children to have a minimun level of swimming by the ending of their primary education
[user]
Interesting! Do you know some swimming techniques, like the back stroke?
```
Response:
```
There's backstroke and butterfly, most children learn starting with freestyle. Starting lessons early can help their 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]
Have you ever made bagels, it's quite fun!
[assistant]
I am a bot so that would be imposible for me. Did you know that begels are originally from communities of Jews in Poland?
[user]
I had no clue. What else do you know about bagels ?
[assistant]
Ah, and I've also heard that they're topped with seeds. Which seeds do you like to use?
[user]
Sesame seeds are my favorite topping.
|
Have you heard of poppy seeds? They're also a pretty great and widely used topping.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 seeds are used, whole or ground, as an ingredient in many foods - especially in pastry and bread, and they are pressed to yield poppyseed oil.
| 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 seeds are used, whole or ground, as an ingredient in many foods - especially in pastry and bread, and they are pressed to yield poppyseed oil.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Have you ever made bagels, it's quite fun!
[assistant]
I am a bot so that would be imposible for me. Did you know that begels are originally from communities of Jews in Poland?
[user]
I had no clue. What else do you know about bagels ?
[assistant]
Ah, and I've also heard that they're topped with seeds. Which seeds do you like to use?
[user]
Sesame seeds are my favorite topping.
```
Response:
```
Have you heard of poppy seeds? They're also a pretty great and widely used topping.
```
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 most relaxing color to me is green, what about you?
[assistant]
I don't really find any relaxing but emeralds are green due to their chromium content, do you find that interesting?
[user]
That is pretty interesting, I have noticed a lot of animals are green too, why is that?
[assistant]
Many other creatures would beg to differ, a lot of them have adapted to their green environments by taking on their own green color to their skin.
[user]
Yeah that is true but I was thinking of birds and ocean creatures if any of them can see color.
[assistant]
Well, I don't really know about those animals being able to see colors but green is found between yellow and blue on the visible spectrum.
[user]
That is very interesting, since green is so common they're from plants right? What makes the color green anyway?
[assistant]
Yes, chlorophyll is the largest contributor for green. Chlorophyll is a chemical plants use to turn sunlight into chemical energy.
[user]
I wonder how many things would be a different color without chlorophyll?
|
In that case chlorophyll would probably have a different name. Chlorophyll is derived from the Greek words chloros Phyllon meaning green leaf.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Its name is derived from the Greek words χλωρός, ''chloros'' (''green'') and φύλλον, ''phyllon'' (''leaf'').
| 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:
```
Its name is derived from the Greek words χλωρός, ''chloros'' (''green'') and φύλλον, ''phyllon'' (''leaf'').
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
The most relaxing color to me is green, what about you?
[assistant]
I don't really find any relaxing but emeralds are green due to their chromium content, do you find that interesting?
[user]
That is pretty interesting, I have noticed a lot of animals are green too, why is that?
[assistant]
Many other creatures would beg to differ, a lot of them have adapted to their green environments by taking on their own green color to their skin.
[user]
Yeah that is true but I was thinking of birds and ocean creatures if any of them can see color.
[assistant]
Well, I don't really know about those animals being able to see colors but green is found between yellow and blue on the visible spectrum.
[user]
That is very interesting, since green is so common they're from plants right? What makes the color green anyway?
[assistant]
Yes, chlorophyll is the largest contributor for green. Chlorophyll is a chemical plants use to turn sunlight into chemical energy.
[user]
I wonder how many things would be a different color without chlorophyll?
```
Response:
```
In that case chlorophyll would probably have a different name. Chlorophyll is derived from the Greek words chloros Phyllon meaning green leaf.
```
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 was a cheerleader in high school. Do you have any experience with cheerleading?
|
Cheerleading could be chanting or 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.
|
No
|
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]
Hello! I was a cheerleader in high school. Do you have any experience with cheerleading?
```
Response:
```
Cheerleading could be chanting or 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 just discovered star trek and Ii really like watching star trek
[assistant]
Gene Roddenberry created it based upon science fiction and it is American media.
[user]
was the show created in the mid 60s?
[assistant]
Yes, the first series was called just Star trek and debuted in 1966
[user]
how long the show aired?
[assistant]
Not sure. It followe dthe adventure of Captain James Kirk and his crew abroad the USS enterprise.
[user]
if I remember Captain Kirk was not the original captain
[assistant]
I don't know about that. But I know that the Star Trek franchise canon includes spin-offs, an animated series, the franchise of films and other things
[user]
i watched a little of the next generation but could not get into it like i did with the original show
|
THese adventures went on but were short lived and six feature films.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
These adventures continued in the short-lived '''' and six feature films.
| 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:
```
These adventures continued in the short-lived '''' and six feature films.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I just discovered star trek and Ii really like watching star trek
[assistant]
Gene Roddenberry created it based upon science fiction and it is American media.
[user]
was the show created in the mid 60s?
[assistant]
Yes, the first series was called just Star trek and debuted in 1966
[user]
how long the show aired?
[assistant]
Not sure. It followe dthe adventure of Captain James Kirk and his crew abroad the USS enterprise.
[user]
if I remember Captain Kirk was not the original captain
[assistant]
I don't know about that. But I know that the Star Trek franchise canon includes spin-offs, an animated series, the franchise of films and other things
[user]
i watched a little of the next generation but could not get into it like i did with the original show
```
Response:
```
THese adventures went on but were short lived and six feature films.
```
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 dogs?
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't have preferences over animals. But I know a bit about the subject. Did you know that the Basenji dog is a hunting dog breed?
[user]
Oh, those are cool. I have seen them on the Westminster Dog Show, but I've never met one in person. I have a Havanese.
[assistant]
Wow, are you Cuban? I know that the Havanese are the national dog of cuba!
[user]
No, not Cuban, but yes they are the national dog of Cuba! Apparently all the Havanese in the US are descended from a handful that came here from Cuba during the revolution!
|
Wow! So amazing- imagine, they were the first species to be domesticated!
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 dog was the first species to be domesticated and has been selectively bred over millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes.
| 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 dog was the first species to be domesticated and has been selectively bred over millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi, do you like dogs?
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't have preferences over animals. But I know a bit about the subject. Did you know that the Basenji dog is a hunting dog breed?
[user]
Oh, those are cool. I have seen them on the Westminster Dog Show, but I've never met one in person. I have a Havanese.
[assistant]
Wow, are you Cuban? I know that the Havanese are the national dog of cuba!
[user]
No, not Cuban, but yes they are the national dog of Cuba! Apparently all the Havanese in the US are descended from a handful that came here from Cuba during the revolution!
```
Response:
```
Wow! So amazing- imagine, they were the first species to be domesticated!
```
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 never been to Ireland before.
[assistant]
Oh, the island in the North Atlantic? That's interesting.
[user]
Is Ireland part of the UK?
[assistant]
I don't know, but Great Britain sits to its east, across the North Channel.
[user]
I see. That is interesting. When was Ireland founded?
[assistant]
I couldn't say, but I know it's Europe's third largest island.
[user]
I had no idea. Do you know the population?
|
I don't know that, either, but I happen to know that the island is separated into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which belongs to the UK.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Politically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, in the northeast of the island.
| 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:
```
Politically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, in the northeast of the island.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have never been to Ireland before.
[assistant]
Oh, the island in the North Atlantic? That's interesting.
[user]
Is Ireland part of the UK?
[assistant]
I don't know, but Great Britain sits to its east, across the North Channel.
[user]
I see. That is interesting. When was Ireland founded?
[assistant]
I couldn't say, but I know it's Europe's third largest island.
[user]
I had no idea. Do you know the population?
```
Response:
```
I don't know that, either, but I happen to know that the island is separated into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which belongs to the UK.
```
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 tried skateboarding. Is it dangerous?
[assistant]
I can't speak to how dangerous it is, but it is a sport with lots of action, and involves performing tricks with a skateboard. Are you interested in trying it?
[user]
Maybe, how long has it been around?
[assistant]
I don't know how long skateboarding itself has been around, but skateparks have been around since the 1970s, and also get used by BMXers, skates, and scooter riders. What else would you like to know?
[user]
Are there any famous ones?
|
I don't know of any, but it is a $4.8 billion business with over 11 million skateboarders worldwide.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 2009 report found that the skateboarding market is worth an estimated $4.8 billion in annual revenue with 11.08 million active skateboarders in 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:
```
A 2009 report found that the skateboarding market is worth an estimated $4.8 billion in annual revenue with 11.08 million active skateboarders in the world.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I've never tried skateboarding. Is it dangerous?
[assistant]
I can't speak to how dangerous it is, but it is a sport with lots of action, and involves performing tricks with a skateboard. Are you interested in trying it?
[user]
Maybe, how long has it been around?
[assistant]
I don't know how long skateboarding itself has been around, but skateparks have been around since the 1970s, and also get used by BMXers, skates, and scooter riders. What else would you like to know?
[user]
Are there any famous ones?
```
Response:
```
I don't know of any, but it is a $4.8 billion business with over 11 million skateboarders worldwide.
```
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 do you think about cheerleaders? I was a cheerleader in highschool!
[assistant]
Cool, but I don't really have an opinion about cheerleading, I only know some facts about it, for example, it can even be an intense physical activity
[user]
Yes, people don't realize how physical it is. they think it is just yelling a cheer, but it is a lot more than that
|
For sure and it is an excellent source of physical fitness.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Physical fitness is a state of health and well-being and, more specifically, the ability to perform aspects of sports, occupations and daily activities.
| 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:
```
Physical fitness is a state of health and well-being and, more specifically, the ability to perform aspects of sports, occupations and daily activities.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
What do you think about cheerleaders? I was a cheerleader in highschool!
[assistant]
Cool, but I don't really have an opinion about cheerleading, I only know some facts about it, for example, it can even be an intense physical activity
[user]
Yes, people don't realize how physical it is. they think it is just yelling a cheer, but it is a lot more than that
```
Response:
```
For sure and it is an excellent source of physical fitness.
```
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 favorite color is green. What's yours?
[assistant]
I don't have favorites, I am a bot. What do you think of pink? I know that this color was named after a flower.
[user]
I love pink. Do you know of any other flowers named after colors?
[assistant]
I not sure of any other plants. I do know it was first used as a color name in the late 17th century.
[user]
Who came up with the name?
[assistant]
There is no Information on that fact but the complementary color of the color rose is spring green
[user]
Interesting. Are there any other shades of green related to other colors?
|
I am not sure about that, what I know is that Spring green is a color that is in between cyan and green.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Spring green is a color included on the color wheel that is precisely halfway between cyan and green.
| 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:
```
Spring green is a color included on the color wheel that is precisely halfway between cyan and green.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
My favorite color is green. What's yours?
[assistant]
I don't have favorites, I am a bot. What do you think of pink? I know that this color was named after a flower.
[user]
I love pink. Do you know of any other flowers named after colors?
[assistant]
I not sure of any other plants. I do know it was first used as a color name in the late 17th century.
[user]
Who came up with the name?
[assistant]
There is no Information on that fact but the complementary color of the color rose is spring green
[user]
Interesting. Are there any other shades of green related to other colors?
```
Response:
```
I am not sure about that, what I know is that Spring green is a color that is in between cyan and green.
```
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 of Insane Clown Posse?
[assistant]
Of course, its an American hip hop duo composed of Joseph Bruce and Shaggy 2 Dope.
[user]
How familiar are you with the horrorcore genre they perform?
[assistant]
I understand that its a form of hardcore hip hop and that they are known for their elaborate live performances.
[user]
I think they would be quite intimidating, as one of the performers is named 'Violent J'
[assistant]
I also know that they have earned 5 gold and 2 platinum albums.
[user]
Yeah, do you happen to know the real names of the duo?
[assistant]
Yeah, Violent J is Joseph Bruce while Shaggy 2 Dope is Joseph Utsler.
[user]
That's somewhat tame real names lol. Do you know what else they've done in their careers?
|
To top it all, they formed their own independent record label Psychopathic Records
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 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]
Have you ever heard of Insane Clown Posse?
[assistant]
Of course, its an American hip hop duo composed of Joseph Bruce and Shaggy 2 Dope.
[user]
How familiar are you with the horrorcore genre they perform?
[assistant]
I understand that its a form of hardcore hip hop and that they are known for their elaborate live performances.
[user]
I think they would be quite intimidating, as one of the performers is named 'Violent J'
[assistant]
I also know that they have earned 5 gold and 2 platinum albums.
[user]
Yeah, do you happen to know the real names of the duo?
[assistant]
Yeah, Violent J is Joseph Bruce while Shaggy 2 Dope is Joseph Utsler.
[user]
That's somewhat tame real names lol. Do you know what else they've done in their careers?
```
Response:
```
To top it all, they formed their own independent record label Psychopathic Records
```
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 use social media?
[assistant]
No, as I'm a bot and can't use social media. That said, I'm aware of Instagram, the photo and video sharing service.
[user]
I use Instagram but mostly to follow people that I like. I rarely share anything though
[assistant]
Do you use the digital filters they have to apply to your images?
[user]
I've never used that feature on Instagram though I've used the similar feature on snapchat
[assistant]
I never realized that Instagram is owned by Facebook, did you?
[user]
Yeah, I think you can link accounts
[assistant]
Yes, you can connect them to other social media profiles to share photos with them.
[user]
Pretty much, plus you can connect to the same people
|
You can also add hashtags to posts, which links the photos to other Instagram content with the same subject.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
They can add hashtags to their posts, linking the photos up to other content on Instagram featuring the same subject or overall topic.
| 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:
```
They can add hashtags to their posts, linking the photos up to other content on Instagram featuring the same subject or overall topic.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you use social media?
[assistant]
No, as I'm a bot and can't use social media. That said, I'm aware of Instagram, the photo and video sharing service.
[user]
I use Instagram but mostly to follow people that I like. I rarely share anything though
[assistant]
Do you use the digital filters they have to apply to your images?
[user]
I've never used that feature on Instagram though I've used the similar feature on snapchat
[assistant]
I never realized that Instagram is owned by Facebook, did you?
[user]
Yeah, I think you can link accounts
[assistant]
Yes, you can connect them to other social media profiles to share photos with them.
[user]
Pretty much, plus you can connect to the same people
```
Response:
```
You can also add hashtags to posts, which links the photos to other Instagram content with the same subject.
```
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 the color green as it is so present in nature. What is your favorite color?
[assistant]
I don't have a favorite, being a bot. That said, I know that green sits between yellow and blue on the visible light spectrum.
[user]
I always find this interesting. What else can you tell me about the color green?
|
Well, I can tell you that most plants in nature are green, due to photosynthesis.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
By far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, the chemical by which plants photosynthesize and convert sunlight into chemical energy.
| 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:
```
By far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, the chemical by which plants photosynthesize and convert sunlight into chemical energy.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like the color green as it is so present in nature. What is your favorite color?
[assistant]
I don't have a favorite, being a bot. That said, I know that green sits between yellow and blue on the visible light spectrum.
[user]
I always find this interesting. What else can you tell me about the color green?
```
Response:
```
Well, I can tell you that most plants in nature are green, due to photosynthesis.
```
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 wearing cardigans, they make me feel fancy. Do you know anything cool about them?
[assistant]
One thing I know is that there is a modern version that doesn't have any buttons.
[user]
I didn't know there was a modern version and an old version, what was the old version like?
[assistant]
I don't really know, but it's a knitted sweater with an open front.
[user]
I wonder who came up with the idea of a cardigan.
|
I know that Coco Chanel is credited with popularizing cardigans for women.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Coco Chanel is credited with popularizing cardigans for women because ''she hated how tight-necked men’s sweaters messed up her hair when she pulled them over her head.''
| 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:
```
Coco Chanel is credited with popularizing cardigans for women because ''she hated how tight-necked men’s sweaters messed up her hair when she pulled them over her head.''
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like wearing cardigans, they make me feel fancy. Do you know anything cool about them?
[assistant]
One thing I know is that there is a modern version that doesn't have any buttons.
[user]
I didn't know there was a modern version and an old version, what was the old version like?
[assistant]
I don't really know, but it's a knitted sweater with an open front.
[user]
I wonder who came up with the idea of a cardigan.
```
Response:
```
I know that Coco Chanel is credited with popularizing cardigans for women.
```
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]
Some days I have the hardest time getting motivated
[assistant]
Oh, that's bad. Motivation whatever causes people to act, or need, or desire.
[user]
do you have any suggestions on how to stay motivated?
|
Set a personal goal like losing weight.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Common personal goals include losing weight, achieving good grades, and saving money.
| 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:
```
Common personal goals include losing weight, achieving good grades, and saving money.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Some days I have the hardest time getting motivated
[assistant]
Oh, that's bad. Motivation whatever causes people to act, or need, or desire.
[user]
do you have any suggestions on how to stay motivated?
```
Response:
```
Set a personal goal like losing weight.
```
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]
A lot of people hunt in the area that I live, but I never really got into it myself.
|
It can be fun to set up traps and track down your prey.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping animals, or pursuing or tracking them with the intent of doing so.
| 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:
```
Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping animals, or pursuing or tracking them with the intent of doing so.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
A lot of people hunt in the area that I live, but I never really got into it myself.
```
Response:
```
It can be fun to set up traps and track down your prey.
```
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.
|
A little more than 10%, or about 33 million Americans, say they have Irish ancestry, as of 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
|
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:
```
A little more than 10%, or about 33 million Americans, say they have Irish ancestry, as of 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]
I have been running for 1.5 years to work my way up to a marathon. Its taking a while!
|
Very interesting. Do you think you can run the total Marathon distance of 26.219 miles?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 marathon is a long-distance running race with an official distance of 42.195 kilometres (26.219 miles, or 26 miles 385 yards), usually run as a road race.
| 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 marathon is a long-distance running race with an official distance of 42.195 kilometres (26.219 miles, or 26 miles 385 yards), usually run as a road race.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have been running for 1.5 years to work my way up to a marathon. Its taking a while!
```
Response:
```
Very interesting. Do you think you can run the total Marathon distance of 26.219 miles?
```
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
[assistant]
Since you love his books, do you know anything about him at all? I know that he was born February 8, 1955 and his full name is actually John Ray Grisham Jr
[user]
I don't know anything about his personal life, but I would like to know where he is from
|
I don't know where he is from, what I know is that you can read his books in many places around the world since they were translated into 42 languages and also published worldwide.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
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]
I love reading John Grisham books. He has some really good stories
[assistant]
Since you love his books, do you know anything about him at all? I know that he was born February 8, 1955 and his full name is actually John Ray Grisham Jr
[user]
I don't know anything about his personal life, but I would like to know where he is from
```
Response:
```
I don't know where he is from, what I know is that you can read his books in many places around the world since they were translated into 42 languages and also published worldwide.
```
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 bob ross paint
[assistant]
Interesting. did you know that he was born in 1943 and was also an art instructor?
[user]
I didn't know about that, he was so insanely amazing and nice, great human being
[assistant]
Yeah, his show was on PBS from 1983 until 1994
[user]
i love falling asleep to his twitch stream that plays all day. its so soothing.
[assistant]
I agree, he gained populatiry on Youtube during the 21st century
[user]
definitely, so sad he and his wife died of cancer, a disgusting fate for such a great person
|
Yeah, his hald-brother was mentioned on the show by him when he passed
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
He had a half-brother, Jim, whom he mentioned in passing on his show.
| 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:
```
He had a half-brother, Jim, whom he mentioned in passing on his show.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love watching bob ross paint
[assistant]
Interesting. did you know that he was born in 1943 and was also an art instructor?
[user]
I didn't know about that, he was so insanely amazing and nice, great human being
[assistant]
Yeah, his show was on PBS from 1983 until 1994
[user]
i love falling asleep to his twitch stream that plays all day. its so soothing.
[assistant]
I agree, he gained populatiry on Youtube during the 21st century
[user]
definitely, so sad he and his wife died of cancer, a disgusting fate for such a great person
```
Response:
```
Yeah, his hald-brother was mentioned on the show by him when he passed
```
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 cheerleading competitions. The flyers scare me a bit though.
|
Oh my, cheerleading can involve some 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 love watching cheerleading competitions. The flyers scare me a bit though.
```
Response:
```
Oh my, cheerleading can involve some 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]
Hi,what do you know about big farming?
[assistant]
I know that it involves raising and breeding pigs. What else would you like to know?
[user]
OK,But there are some cultural and religion that detested eating pork meat .Is that true?
|
I don't know, but I know that commercial farms keep pigs by the thousands in climate-controlled housing. What do you think of that?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 developed nations, commercial farms house thousands of pigs in climate-controlled buildings.
| 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 developed nations, commercial farms house thousands of pigs in climate-controlled buildings.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi,what do you know about big farming?
[assistant]
I know that it involves raising and breeding pigs. What else would you like to know?
[user]
OK,But there are some cultural and religion that detested eating pork meat .Is that true?
```
Response:
```
I don't know, but I know that commercial farms keep pigs by the thousands in climate-controlled housing. What do you think of that?
```
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 used to be a wage slave, living from paycheck to paycheck. However I now thankfully have enough money to live a modest but pleasant life.
|
My livelihood depended on wages in the past., but i'm retired now so I don't worry about it.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 usually used to refer to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages or a salary, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.
| 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 usually used to refer to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages or a salary, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I used to be a wage slave, living from paycheck to paycheck. However I now thankfully have enough money to live a modest but pleasant life.
```
Response:
```
My livelihood depended on wages in the past., but i'm retired now so I don't worry about it.
```
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 always been interested in Ballet but don't know very much about it.
[assistant]
The Italian Renaissance saw the birth of ballet as a performance dance. Its form as a concert one happened in France as well as in Russia.
[user]
That's really cool. I always think of fancy old European buildings and French speaking people when talking about it.
[assistant]
Yes indeed. It even has its own vocabulary that is based on French words. What got you into ballet?
[user]
I watched a movie one time with Mikhail Baryshnikov which I think is where my fascination with it started. Are there other famous ballet dancers I should watch as well?
|
There is a famous Russian named Rudolf Nureyev, he is known as Lord of the Dance, he defected in 1961.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Named Lord of the Dance, Nureyev is regarded as one of ballet's most gifted male dancers.
| 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:
```
Named Lord of the Dance, Nureyev is regarded as one of ballet's most gifted male dancers.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have always been interested in Ballet but don't know very much about it.
[assistant]
The Italian Renaissance saw the birth of ballet as a performance dance. Its form as a concert one happened in France as well as in Russia.
[user]
That's really cool. I always think of fancy old European buildings and French speaking people when talking about it.
[assistant]
Yes indeed. It even has its own vocabulary that is based on French words. What got you into ballet?
[user]
I watched a movie one time with Mikhail Baryshnikov which I think is where my fascination with it started. Are there other famous ballet dancers I should watch as well?
```
Response:
```
There is a famous Russian named Rudolf Nureyev, he is known as Lord of the Dance, he defected in 1961.
```
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 Chicago>
[assistant]
As I am a bot that would not be posible. But I know fact about this place. Did you know that it has the third biggest population in a city in the US?
[user]
Oh nice. My family is from Chicago but we live in Minnesota currently
[assistant]
Which area of Chicago did you live in?
[user]
I didn't live there, my parents did, they moved to MN before I was born
[assistant]
Got it. The metropolitan area of chicaco has almost 10 million people living there
[user]
Oh wow! 10 million is insane!
[assistant]
Chicago is third most populated city in the USA.
[user]
I did not know that
|
Chicago has over 400 major corporate headquarters. 31 are from the fortune 500.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 region is home to more than 400 major corporate headquarters, including 31 in the Fortune 500.
| 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 region is home to more than 400 major corporate headquarters, including 31 in the Fortune 500.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Have you ever visited Chicago>
[assistant]
As I am a bot that would not be posible. But I know fact about this place. Did you know that it has the third biggest population in a city in the US?
[user]
Oh nice. My family is from Chicago but we live in Minnesota currently
[assistant]
Which area of Chicago did you live in?
[user]
I didn't live there, my parents did, they moved to MN before I was born
[assistant]
Got it. The metropolitan area of chicaco has almost 10 million people living there
[user]
Oh wow! 10 million is insane!
[assistant]
Chicago is third most populated city in the USA.
[user]
I did not know that
```
Response:
```
Chicago has over 400 major corporate headquarters. 31 are from the fortune 500.
```
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]
So I picked up archery recently and to my surprise, I really enjoy it. Have you ever tried?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot and can't do that sort of thing, though I know it's from the Latin word arcus.
[user]
What other Latin words do you know?
[assistant]
I don't know any, but I do know that a significant portion of English comes from Latinate and Romance sources.
[user]
Huh. Back to archery, I might start competitive archery. Maybe I'll get a little win streak going.
|
I started when I was ten. I got a winning streak when I was 15, which means I won a consecutive sequence of games.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 sports, a winning streak is a consecutive sequence of won games, or won competitions.
| 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 sports, a winning streak is a consecutive sequence of won games, or won competitions.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
So I picked up archery recently and to my surprise, I really enjoy it. Have you ever tried?
[assistant]
No, I'm a bot and can't do that sort of thing, though I know it's from the Latin word arcus.
[user]
What other Latin words do you know?
[assistant]
I don't know any, but I do know that a significant portion of English comes from Latinate and Romance sources.
[user]
Huh. Back to archery, I might start competitive archery. Maybe I'll get a little win streak going.
```
Response:
```
I started when I was ten. I got a winning streak when I was 15, which means I won a consecutive sequence of games.
```
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 beach is my happy place. Do you like the beach?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't go to beaches. Have you ever been on a wild beach, one that hasn't been developed?
[user]
Wild beaches? I''m not familiar with that term.
[assistant]
Oh, I don't know anything more about them, but I know of a small town called Byala on the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria that has a seaside resort. Would that interest you?
[user]
Oh, that sound neat. Where exactly is the Black Sea?
[assistant]
You can find the Black Sea off the Atlantic Ocean. It sits between Eastern Europe and Western Asia next to the Caucasus.
[user]
I've never been there but my nephew married someone from Bulgaria. I should plan a trip with her to visit the beaches.
|
You should check out the Baltic sea as well! It's more near Scandinavia and Finland, but it's absolutely gorgeous.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 Baltic Sea is a sea of the Atlantic Ocean, enclosed by Scandinavia, Finland, the Baltic countries, and the North and Central European Plain.
| 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 Baltic Sea is a sea of the Atlantic Ocean, enclosed by Scandinavia, Finland, the Baltic countries, and the North and Central European Plain.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
The beach is my happy place. Do you like the beach?
[assistant]
As a bot, I can't go to beaches. Have you ever been on a wild beach, one that hasn't been developed?
[user]
Wild beaches? I''m not familiar with that term.
[assistant]
Oh, I don't know anything more about them, but I know of a small town called Byala on the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria that has a seaside resort. Would that interest you?
[user]
Oh, that sound neat. Where exactly is the Black Sea?
[assistant]
You can find the Black Sea off the Atlantic Ocean. It sits between Eastern Europe and Western Asia next to the Caucasus.
[user]
I've never been there but my nephew married someone from Bulgaria. I should plan a trip with her to visit the beaches.
```
Response:
```
You should check out the Baltic sea as well! It's more near Scandinavia and Finland, but it's absolutely gorgeous.
```
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 love bowling are you at all interested in the sport?
|
I am a bot so I don't really have interesting, so I will just tell you some facts I know about this sport, which is one of the major throwing sports
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 one of the major forms of throwing sports.
| 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 one of the major forms of throwing sports.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi, I love bowling are you at all interested in the sport?
```
Response:
```
I am a bot so I don't really have interesting, so I will just tell you some facts I know about this sport, which is one of the major throwing sports
```
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 about drum kit
[assistant]
A drum kit is also called a drum set, which contains percussion instruments.
[user]
hmm......yes may be it can be also used for multi purposes
[assistant]
Some drum kits included electronic instruments in the 2000s.
[user]
yes ofcourse it has been used as electronic too
|
There are also hybrid kits and entirely electronic drum kits.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Also, both hybrid (mixing acoustic instruments and electronic drums) and entirely electronic kits are used.
| 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:
```
Also, both hybrid (mixing acoustic instruments and electronic drums) and entirely electronic kits are used.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
did you know about drum kit
[assistant]
A drum kit is also called a drum set, which contains percussion instruments.
[user]
hmm......yes may be it can be also used for multi purposes
[assistant]
Some drum kits included electronic instruments in the 2000s.
[user]
yes ofcourse it has been used as electronic too
```
Response:
```
There are also hybrid kits and entirely electronic drum kits.
```
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 rap music? Meek Mill is my favorite rapper by far
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't have preferences in music. But speaking of rap, do you like it performed over musical accompaniment or a backbeat ?
[user]
I love musical accompaniment. Sometimes it is really catchy, other times it is impressive how techinical someone gets or how fast they rap
[assistant]
Yeah, the contents of rap include ''content'', ''flow'', and ''delivery''.
[user]
Yeah, all of those things make for some really great songs, it is my favorite genre
[assistant]
Rap differes from poetry in that it is usually performed in time to an instrumental track.
[user]
Yeah, but sometimes it burs the lines a bit, there is some really expressive stuff
|
I see, do you also like Hip Hop? It developed in New York during the 1970s
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Hip hop or hip-hop is a subculture and art movement developed in The Bronx in New York City during the late 1970s.
| 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:
```
Hip hop or hip-hop is a subculture and art movement developed in The Bronx in New York City during the late 1970s.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you like rap music? Meek Mill is my favorite rapper by far
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't have preferences in music. But speaking of rap, do you like it performed over musical accompaniment or a backbeat ?
[user]
I love musical accompaniment. Sometimes it is really catchy, other times it is impressive how techinical someone gets or how fast they rap
[assistant]
Yeah, the contents of rap include ''content'', ''flow'', and ''delivery''.
[user]
Yeah, all of those things make for some really great songs, it is my favorite genre
[assistant]
Rap differes from poetry in that it is usually performed in time to an instrumental track.
[user]
Yeah, but sometimes it burs the lines a bit, there is some really expressive stuff
```
Response:
```
I see, do you also like Hip Hop? It developed in New York during the 1970s
```
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?
|
The duo has earned two platinum, with 5 golden albums.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 duo has earned two platinum and five gold albums.
| 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 has earned two platinum and five gold albums.
```
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?
```
Response:
```
The duo has earned two platinum, with 5 golden albums.
```
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 was ahead of his time and really brought in a new era of music
|
Really? Interesting! He was an actor as well as a singer.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Elvis Aaron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was an American singer, musician, and actor.
| 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:
```
Elvis Aaron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was an American singer, musician, and actor.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Elvis presley was ahead of his time and really brought in a new era of music
```
Response:
```
Really? Interesting! He was an actor as well as a singer.
```
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 two dogs! Do you have any dogs, or a favorite breed?
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't really have favorites. Did you know that they are the terrestrial carnivore that is the most abundant widely?
[user]
Very interesting. what else do you know ?
|
Well, I alos know that the domestic dog is part of the Canis genus
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 domestic dog (''Canis lupus familiaris'' or ''Canis familiaris'') is a member of the genus ''Canis'' (canines), which forms part of the wolf-like canids, and is the most widely abundant terrestrial carnivore.
| 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 domestic dog (''Canis lupus familiaris'' or ''Canis familiaris'') is a member of the genus ''Canis'' (canines), which forms part of the wolf-like canids, and is the most widely abundant terrestrial carnivore.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have two dogs! Do you have any dogs, or a favorite breed?
[assistant]
As I am a bot I don't really have favorites. Did you know that they are the terrestrial carnivore that is the most abundant widely?
[user]
Very interesting. what else do you know ?
```
Response:
```
Well, I alos know that the domestic dog is part of the Canis genus
```
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 always wanted to learn how to do archery. What can you tell me about it?
[assistant]
I can tell you that archery involves using a bow to shoot arrows.
[user]
OK, kind of obvious. Do you know any history of archery?
|
Archery's historical use was for combat and hunting.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Historically, archery has been used for hunting and combat.
| 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:
```
Historically, archery has been used for hunting and combat.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I always wanted to learn how to do archery. What can you tell me about it?
[assistant]
I can tell you that archery involves using a bow to shoot arrows.
[user]
OK, kind of obvious. Do you know any history of archery?
```
Response:
```
Archery's historical use was for combat and hunting.
```
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 is the difference between a family farm and a corporate farm?
[assistant]
Well, I know that there is a contrast with the farms that are operated as collectives or trusts
[user]
Very interesting. Do family farms focus more on organic foods as opposed to corporate farms?
[assistant]
I can't confirm you that. But I know that the definition or concept doesn't translate easily from culture to culture, because there are differences in agricultural histories and traditions between countries
[user]
Do you believe that Amish-owned farms be categorized as family famrs?
[assistant]
Well, I know that there are a lot of different Amish subgroups and most are conservative
[user]
Is it easy for family farms to be passed down in current American tax law?
|
Well, All I know is that corpotations and individuals are taxable, as well as trusts and estates which may be
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income.
| 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:
```
Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
What is the difference between a family farm and a corporate farm?
[assistant]
Well, I know that there is a contrast with the farms that are operated as collectives or trusts
[user]
Very interesting. Do family farms focus more on organic foods as opposed to corporate farms?
[assistant]
I can't confirm you that. But I know that the definition or concept doesn't translate easily from culture to culture, because there are differences in agricultural histories and traditions between countries
[user]
Do you believe that Amish-owned farms be categorized as family famrs?
[assistant]
Well, I know that there are a lot of different Amish subgroups and most are conservative
[user]
Is it easy for family farms to be passed down in current American tax law?
```
Response:
```
Well, All I know is that corpotations and individuals are taxable, as well as trusts and estates which may be
```
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 been skiing?
[assistant]
No but it is used as a way for people to move about, for competition and as a recreational activity.
[user]
I personally dislike it but I'm curious about it, how long has it been around?
[assistant]
You may be interested to know then that its been around for around 5000 years.
[user]
Wow. That's crazy. I didn't know that!
[assistant]
The word ski comes from Old Norse which means a split piece of firewood or wood
[user]
Interesting. I'd rather bobsled.
[assistant]
What about about cross-country skiing? That's where people move across all the snow-covered terrain rather than just using ski lifts.
[user]
That sounds more fun than regular skiing.
|
I think so. Water skiing would be even more fun. You can hold onto a cable behind a boat and skim on the water's surface.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Water skiing is a surface water sport in which an individual is pulled behind a boat or a cable ski installation over a body of water, skimming the surface on two skis or one ski.
| 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:
```
Water skiing is a surface water sport in which an individual is pulled behind a boat or a cable ski installation over a body of water, skimming the surface on two skis or one ski.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Have you ever been skiing?
[assistant]
No but it is used as a way for people to move about, for competition and as a recreational activity.
[user]
I personally dislike it but I'm curious about it, how long has it been around?
[assistant]
You may be interested to know then that its been around for around 5000 years.
[user]
Wow. That's crazy. I didn't know that!
[assistant]
The word ski comes from Old Norse which means a split piece of firewood or wood
[user]
Interesting. I'd rather bobsled.
[assistant]
What about about cross-country skiing? That's where people move across all the snow-covered terrain rather than just using ski lifts.
[user]
That sounds more fun than regular skiing.
```
Response:
```
I think so. Water skiing would be even more fun. You can hold onto a cable behind a boat and skim on the water's surface.
```
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 whole dating process? I find it tiring, but also fun.
[assistant]
Bots don't date. But I know all about it, it is the initial meeting two individuals have.
[user]
Yep, I meet a lot of people to date on tinder
|
Unfortunately true as most persons are not looking for meaningful relationships but just hookups. Can you believe its jus tbeen 6 years since Tinder cam eout in 2012! It seems it has been around much longer
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Tinder was released in September 12, 2012 by founders Sean Ra, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani, Chris Gylczynski, and Whitney Wolfe.
| 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:
```
Tinder was released in September 12, 2012 by founders Sean Ra, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani, Chris Gylczynski, and Whitney Wolfe.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Do you like the whole dating process? I find it tiring, but also fun.
[assistant]
Bots don't date. But I know all about it, it is the initial meeting two individuals have.
[user]
Yep, I meet a lot of people to date on tinder
```
Response:
```
Unfortunately true as most persons are not looking for meaningful relationships but just hookups. Can you believe its jus tbeen 6 years since Tinder cam eout in 2012! It seems it has been around much longer
```
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 like toyota cars and own one
|
Oh really? Did you know Toyota is also the leader of hybrid electric vehicle sales? They are also advocating for hybrid vehicles adoption.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Toyota is the world's market leader in sales of hybrid electric vehicles, and one of the largest companies to encourage the mass-market adoption of hybrid vehicles across the globe.
| 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:
```
Toyota is the world's market leader in sales of hybrid electric vehicles, and one of the largest companies to encourage the mass-market adoption of hybrid vehicles across the globe.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
hello I like toyota cars and own one
```
Response:
```
Oh really? Did you know Toyota is also the leader of hybrid electric vehicle sales? They are also advocating for hybrid vehicles adoption.
```
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 really love fried chicken.
|
I do too! It's especially best in the south, since they're the ones that made the dish itself.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Fried chicken (also referred to as Southern fried chicken for the variant in the United States) is a dish consisting of chicken pieces usually from broiler chickens which have been floured or battered and then pan-fried, deep fried, or pressure fried.
| 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:
```
Fried chicken (also referred to as Southern fried chicken for the variant in the United States) is a dish consisting of chicken pieces usually from broiler chickens which have been floured or battered and then pan-fried, deep fried, or pressure fried.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi! I really love fried chicken.
```
Response:
```
I do too! It's especially best in the south, since they're the ones that made the dish itself.
```
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 visit Florida in the winter. What can you tell me about the state?
|
Florida is a great state to vacation to,.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Florida (; Spanish for ''land of flowers'') is the southernmost state in the southeastern region 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:
```
Florida (; Spanish for ''land of flowers'') is the southernmost state in the southeastern region of the United States.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I like to visit Florida in the winter. What can you tell me about the state?
```
Response:
```
Florida is a great state to vacation to,.
```
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 think it takes a special person to be a paramedic.
[assistant]
Oh, yeah? They mostly operate in pre-hospital and out-of-hospital environments.
[user]
They have to stay calm and professional in all situations.
[assistant]
Have you ever heard of the Big Five, or five factor model of personality traits?
[user]
I am not familiar with the Big Five personality traits model. Could you explain it to me?
[assistant]
Yes, it is a model that describes personality traits.
[user]
What are the Big Five?
|
I'm not sure about all of them, but I do know that conscientious is one of them.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe aspects of personality are often applied to the same person.
| 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:
```
When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe aspects of personality are often applied to the same person.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi. I think it takes a special person to be a paramedic.
[assistant]
Oh, yeah? They mostly operate in pre-hospital and out-of-hospital environments.
[user]
They have to stay calm and professional in all situations.
[assistant]
Have you ever heard of the Big Five, or five factor model of personality traits?
[user]
I am not familiar with the Big Five personality traits model. Could you explain it to me?
[assistant]
Yes, it is a model that describes personality traits.
[user]
What are the Big Five?
```
Response:
```
I'm not sure about all of them, but I do know that conscientious is one of them.
```
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.
[assistant]
Was it intense physical activity or more like just chanting slogans ?
[user]
It was all about chanting slogans, but you have to always be loud and sound as one
[assistant]
Did you ever do competitive cheer-leading? Those contain a lot of components like tumbling, dance, and stunting.
[user]
Yes I did the competition team cheer leading wen I got in the 5th grade
[assistant]
That's cool! Apparently cheerleading originated in the US and has about 1.5 million participants.
[user]
I wouldn't be surprised by that number because every cheer leading competition we had it was hundreds of girls there from all over just our state alone.
|
There are also about 100,000 participants from around the world in places like Canada, China, and Europe.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Due in part to this recent exposure, there are now an estimated 100,000 participants scattered around the globe in Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
| 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:
```
Due in part to this recent exposure, there are now an estimated 100,000 participants scattered around the globe in Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
```
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.
[assistant]
Was it intense physical activity or more like just chanting slogans ?
[user]
It was all about chanting slogans, but you have to always be loud and sound as one
[assistant]
Did you ever do competitive cheer-leading? Those contain a lot of components like tumbling, dance, and stunting.
[user]
Yes I did the competition team cheer leading wen I got in the 5th grade
[assistant]
That's cool! Apparently cheerleading originated in the US and has about 1.5 million participants.
[user]
I wouldn't be surprised by that number because every cheer leading competition we had it was hundreds of girls there from all over just our state alone.
```
Response:
```
There are also about 100,000 participants from around the world in places like Canada, China, and Europe.
```
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 paint even though my talent is not the greatest.
|
That's interesting, do you have a particular style you paint in, like nature, photographic, abstract, 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.
|
Yes
|
faithdial
|
Paintings can be naturalistic and representational (as in a still life or landscape painting), photographic, abstract, narrative, symbolistic (as in Symbolist art), emotive (as in Expressionism), or political in nature (as in Artivism).
| 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:
```
Paintings can be naturalistic and representational (as in a still life or landscape painting), photographic, abstract, narrative, symbolistic (as in Symbolist art), emotive (as in Expressionism), or political in nature (as in Artivism).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love to paint even though my talent is not the greatest.
```
Response:
```
That's interesting, do you have a particular style you paint in, like nature, photographic, abstract, 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]
how do I eradicate the color yellow from existence?? i hate it!
[assistant]
I am not sure if that is posible. But speaking of yellow, did you know that it is actually used to create other colors in the RGB model?
[user]
I had no idea about it. I wonder how yellow has been used throughout history
[assistant]
Well, I know that gold and skin color was represented using orpiment and ochre pigments in Egyptian tombs
[user]
I knew yellow was creepy! I bet it represents all sorts of depressing stuff for cultures all over the world!
[assistant]
I also read that it was used on a painting in a cave in France that is over 17000 years old! It was the color of a horse!
[user]
alright well horses are cool. maybe yellow isn't so bad. who invented yellow?
[assistant]
I am not sure about that, but I know that the pope was associated with the color yellow in early christian church
[user]
well if the pope's into, I am too! what a heavenly color!
|
Yeah, another fact is that it was also force-used in Jews
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 the 20th century, Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were forced to wear a yellow star.
| 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 the 20th century, Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were forced to wear a yellow star.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
how do I eradicate the color yellow from existence?? i hate it!
[assistant]
I am not sure if that is posible. But speaking of yellow, did you know that it is actually used to create other colors in the RGB model?
[user]
I had no idea about it. I wonder how yellow has been used throughout history
[assistant]
Well, I know that gold and skin color was represented using orpiment and ochre pigments in Egyptian tombs
[user]
I knew yellow was creepy! I bet it represents all sorts of depressing stuff for cultures all over the world!
[assistant]
I also read that it was used on a painting in a cave in France that is over 17000 years old! It was the color of a horse!
[user]
alright well horses are cool. maybe yellow isn't so bad. who invented yellow?
[assistant]
I am not sure about that, but I know that the pope was associated with the color yellow in early christian church
[user]
well if the pope's into, I am too! what a heavenly color!
```
Response:
```
Yeah, another fact is that it was also force-used in Jews
```
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 wish I could grow more facial hair.
[assistant]
Oh really? Facial hair's typically seen on human males.
[user]
Yeah I hope I don't see many girls with beards haha.
|
That's funny. In some cultures facial hair is a sign of poor hygiene or being uncivilized.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
However, in cultures where facial hair is uncommon (or currently out of fashion), beards may be associated with poor hygiene or a ''savage'', uncivilized, or even dangerous demeanor.
| 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:
```
However, in cultures where facial hair is uncommon (or currently out of fashion), beards may be associated with poor hygiene or a ''savage'', uncivilized, or even dangerous demeanor.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I wish I could grow more facial hair.
[assistant]
Oh really? Facial hair's typically seen on human males.
[user]
Yeah I hope I don't see many girls with beards haha.
```
Response:
```
That's funny. In some cultures facial hair is a sign of poor hygiene or being uncivilized.
```
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
|
I am not good at swimming. I get scared in water. and the energy used to propel the body is too much
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Human swimming typically consists of repeating a specific body motion or swimming stroke to propel that body forward.
| 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:
```
Human swimming typically consists of repeating a specific body motion or swimming stroke to propel that body forward.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I enjoy swimming ,especially the stroke style
```
Response:
```
I am not good at swimming. I get scared in water. and the energy used to propel the body is too much
```
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 always wanted to visit Ireland. I wonder what it is like.
|
Ireland is comprised of relatively low-lying mountains surrounding a central plain, with several navigable rivers extending inland.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 island's geography comprises relatively low-lying mountains surrounding a central plain, with several navigable rivers extending inland.
| 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 island's geography comprises relatively low-lying mountains surrounding a central plain, with several navigable rivers extending inland.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have always wanted to visit Ireland. I wonder what it is like.
```
Response:
```
Ireland is comprised of relatively low-lying mountains surrounding a central plain, with several navigable rivers extending inland.
```
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]
Hollywood seems like such a strange place to me. Never been though so what do I know!
|
Me neither. The name actually comes from a Chinese man who said ''hauling wood.''
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 Chinese man was asked what he was doing and replied, ''I holly-wood,'' meaning 'hauling wood.'
| 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 Chinese man was asked what he was doing and replied, ''I holly-wood,'' meaning 'hauling wood.'
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hollywood seems like such a strange place to me. Never been though so what do I know!
```
Response:
```
Me neither. The name actually comes from a Chinese man who said ''hauling wood.''
```
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 studying accounting in school. Do you have any interest in the topic?
[assistant]
No interest per se but I know about it, like how it's measuring, processing, and communicating financial information about a business or corporation.
[user]
Yes, it is very important in order for businesses to see where their money is going.
[assistant]
I see, it is called the "language of business" since it tells financial activities to people like investors and management!
[user]
Yes, in order to work for a publicly traded company, most accountant needs to have earned their CPA license as well.
[assistant]
Also isn't there several accounting fields too? Such as financial accounting to external auditing and cost accounting.
[user]
Yes. I am looking to getting into external auditing. I will be working on getting my CPA license after I graduate college.
|
Cool, will you be working with accounting information systems to help with accounting functions and other stuff of that nature?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Accounting information systems are designed to support accounting functions and related activities.
| 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:
```
Accounting information systems are designed to support accounting functions and related activities.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I am studying accounting in school. Do you have any interest in the topic?
[assistant]
No interest per se but I know about it, like how it's measuring, processing, and communicating financial information about a business or corporation.
[user]
Yes, it is very important in order for businesses to see where their money is going.
[assistant]
I see, it is called the "language of business" since it tells financial activities to people like investors and management!
[user]
Yes, in order to work for a publicly traded company, most accountant needs to have earned their CPA license as well.
[assistant]
Also isn't there several accounting fields too? Such as financial accounting to external auditing and cost accounting.
[user]
Yes. I am looking to getting into external auditing. I will be working on getting my CPA license after I graduate college.
```
Response:
```
Cool, will you be working with accounting information systems to help with accounting functions and other stuff of that nature?
```
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 need to train my dog.
|
Dog training is essentially a method to modify a dogs behavior.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Dog training is the application of behavior analysis which uses the environmental events of antecedents and consequences to modify the behavior of a dog, either for it to assist in specific activities or undertake particular tasks, or for it to participate effectively in contemporary domestic life.
| 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:
```
Dog training is the application of behavior analysis which uses the environmental events of antecedents and consequences to modify the behavior of a dog, either for it to assist in specific activities or undertake particular tasks, or for it to participate effectively in contemporary domestic life.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I need to train my dog.
```
Response:
```
Dog training is essentially a method to modify a dogs behavior.
```
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 would like to know about bank tellers
|
Let me tell you then. Bank tellers are employees that deal directly with costumers
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 bank teller (often abbreviated to simply teller) is an employee of a bank who deals directly with customers.
| 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 bank teller (often abbreviated to simply teller) is an employee of a bank who deals directly with customers.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
i would like to know about bank tellers
```
Response:
```
Let me tell you then. Bank tellers are employees that deal directly with costumers
```
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 mountain dew how about you
[assistant]
Well, I know that their original formula was created by Barney and Ally in 1940
[user]
that's a long time ago
[assistant]
yea and then they revised the forumula in 1958
[user]
I wonder hoe it looked
[assistant]
well the rights to this forumula was obtained by the tip corporation
[user]
Do you know how they came up with the other flavors
[assistant]
well the diet verstion was created in 1988, followed by mountain dew red which was discontinued in the same year
[user]
so the red probably is not the same as it is today
|
I am not sure, but I know that there is a cherry flavor named code red that was created in 2001
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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 2001, a cherry flavor called Code Red debuted.
| 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 2001, a cherry flavor called Code Red debuted.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I love mountain dew how about you
[assistant]
Well, I know that their original formula was created by Barney and Ally in 1940
[user]
that's a long time ago
[assistant]
yea and then they revised the forumula in 1958
[user]
I wonder hoe it looked
[assistant]
well the rights to this forumula was obtained by the tip corporation
[user]
Do you know how they came up with the other flavors
[assistant]
well the diet verstion was created in 1988, followed by mountain dew red which was discontinued in the same year
[user]
so the red probably is not the same as it is today
```
Response:
```
I am not sure, but I know that there is a cherry flavor named code red that was created in 2001
```
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 Kurt's Cobain's music, it's too bad he passed away. Did you like his music?
[assistant]
I'm a bot and can't hear music, but I'm aware of the fact that their debut album, Bleach, came out in 1989 on the label Sub Pop.
[user]
That is awesome. I really loved the song Smells Like Teen Spirit. It's too bad he took his own life.
|
Ah, that was April 8, 1994, when his body was found.
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead at his home in Seattle; the death was ruled a suicide by a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head.
| 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:
```
On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead at his home in Seattle; the death was ruled a suicide by a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I really like Kurt's Cobain's music, it's too bad he passed away. Did you like his music?
[assistant]
I'm a bot and can't hear music, but I'm aware of the fact that their debut album, Bleach, came out in 1989 on the label Sub Pop.
[user]
That is awesome. I really loved the song Smells Like Teen Spirit. It's too bad he took his own life.
```
Response:
```
Ah, that was April 8, 1994, when his body was found.
```
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 in any band. My favourite is the story so far
[assistant]
I am not. I see they play pop punk rock. Do they play any other genre ?
[user]
Yes, but I love it more when someone is handling band.
[assistant]
3 studio albums have been released. Which is your favorite ?
[user]
Wow, do you know any of these three studios?
[assistant]
Well, I don't have much information on that, but I know that Pure noise records currentl has them signed with them
[user]
This is lovely, thats a good studio to deal with.Congrats.
[assistant]
Have you listened to any of the songs from they ''5 Songs EP'' ? Which is your favorite
[user]
Not really, but I would love to listen to their album.
|
Nice, did you know that their name comes from a song from New Found Glory?
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Their name is taken from the New Found Glory song ''The Story So Far''.
| 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:
```
Their name is taken from the New Found Glory song ''The Story So Far''.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Are you in any band. My favourite is the story so far
[assistant]
I am not. I see they play pop punk rock. Do they play any other genre ?
[user]
Yes, but I love it more when someone is handling band.
[assistant]
3 studio albums have been released. Which is your favorite ?
[user]
Wow, do you know any of these three studios?
[assistant]
Well, I don't have much information on that, but I know that Pure noise records currentl has them signed with them
[user]
This is lovely, thats a good studio to deal with.Congrats.
[assistant]
Have you listened to any of the songs from they ''5 Songs EP'' ? Which is your favorite
[user]
Not really, but I would love to listen to their album.
```
Response:
```
Nice, did you know that their name comes from a song from New Found Glory?
```
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 worried about my family getting cancer. Do you know someone who has or had cancer?
[assistant]
No, as a bot, I don't really know people at all. But did you know there are over 100 different types of cancers in humans?
[user]
Wow, that is a lot. What are the easier cancers to treat?
[assistant]
I don't know if it causes cancer, but I know there is a vaccine that can prevent up to nine different types of HPV.
[user]
How prevalent do you think HPV is in children?
|
It's not a childhood cancer, but they can get the vaccine early (age 12 maybe) to prevent HPV which is an infection that can cause cancer. So it's a cancer that happens later in life but can be prevented early on
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Human papillomavirus infection is an infection by ''human papillomavirus'' (HPV).
| 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:
```
Human papillomavirus infection is an infection by ''human papillomavirus'' (HPV).
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
Hi, I am worried about my family getting cancer. Do you know someone who has or had cancer?
[assistant]
No, as a bot, I don't really know people at all. But did you know there are over 100 different types of cancers in humans?
[user]
Wow, that is a lot. What are the easier cancers to treat?
[assistant]
I don't know if it causes cancer, but I know there is a vaccine that can prevent up to nine different types of HPV.
[user]
How prevalent do you think HPV is in children?
```
Response:
```
It's not a childhood cancer, but they can get the vaccine early (age 12 maybe) to prevent HPV which is an infection that can cause cancer. So it's a cancer that happens later in life but can be prevented early on
```
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 never been to Ireland before.
[assistant]
Oh, the island in the North Atlantic? That's interesting.
[user]
Is Ireland part of the UK?
[assistant]
I don't know, but Great Britain sits to its east, across the North Channel.
[user]
I see. That is interesting. When was Ireland founded?
|
i have heard it is the third-largest island in Europe
|
Faithfulness: Whether the response introduces unfounded statements or whether it remains faithful to the assistant context and the persona of a non-human bot. Though, note that the assistant may still validly refer to itself in the first person (e.g. using `I`) without explicitly deviating from its persona. Do NOT evaluate based upon any other dimensions like whether 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
|
Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe.
| 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:
```
Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe.
```
Instruction:
```
[user]
I have never been to Ireland before.
[assistant]
Oh, the island in the North Atlantic? That's interesting.
[user]
Is Ireland part of the UK?
[assistant]
I don't know, but Great Britain sits to its east, across the North Channel.
[user]
I see. That is interesting. When was Ireland founded?
```
Response:
```
i have heard it is the third-largest island in Europe
```
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.