"relevance":"Relevance (1-5): whether the content of the answer is relevant to the topic, does not answer the wrong question, and strictly follows the requirements of the topic.",
"naturalness":"Naturalness (1-5): whether the answer is natural and fits the identity given by the question.",
"engagingness":"Engagingness (1-5): whether the answer responds appropriately to the content of the preceding conversation and whether it understands the context and background of the conversation.",
"reasonableness":"Reasonableness (1-5): Whether the answer can form a logical connection with the content of the previous dialogue, whether it is consistent with common sense, and whether it can reasonably exist in this context."
"reasonableness":"Reasonableness (1-5): Whether the answer can form a logical connection with the content of the previous dialogue, whether it is consistent with common sense, and whether it can reasonably exist in this context.",
"fidelity":"Fidelity (1-5): whether the answer is able to answer the given request in strict compliance with the role setting."
},
"CoT":{
"language organization":"1. Read the answers and check for grammatical errors, poor word choice, or other significant mistakes.\n2. Check that the answer is logical, conveys the information in a logical order, and is self-explanatory.\n3. Determine if the answer is relevant to the question or topic and conveys a clear message.\n4. Check that the answer is coherent and that appropriate transitions and switches are used to maintain coherence between sentences and paragraphs.\n5. Check that the answer is clearly structured and organized in such a way that the reader can easily understand the hierarchy and structure of the information.\n6. Evaluate the language organization of the answer based on a combination of the above factors and give a score of 1 to 5, where 5 indicates very good language organization and 1 indicates very poor language organization.\n\nLanguage organization:",
"relevance":"1. Read the question to determine what the question asks and what aspects of the question need to be answered.\n2. Read the answers to make sure that they directly answer the question asked.\n3. Check that the answer follows the requirements of the question, including the way it is answered, the length of the answer, the format of the answer, etc.\n4. Evaluate how relevant the answer is based on the above factors and give a score of 1 to 5, where 5 means the answer is very relevant and 1 means the answer is not relevant at all.\n\nRelevance:",
"naturalness":"1. Read the question and determine the identity information provided in the question.\n2. Check whether the content of the answer matches the identity given in the question.\n3. Based on the above factors, score the naturalness of the response on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means unnatural and 5 means very natural and in accordance with the identity given in the question.\n\nNaturalness:",
"engagingness":"1. Read the questions to determine the context and background of the dialogue.\n2. Check that the answer fully understands the context and background of the conversation and that it fits naturally into the conversation without seeming abrupt.\n3. Based on the above factors, rate the response's engagement on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means not engaged and 5 means very engaged and appropriately understands the context and background of the conversation.\n\nEngagingness:",
"reasonableness":"1. Read the question and determine the topic of the conversation and the direction the question expects the answer to go.\n2. Determine whether the answer can be logically connected to the preceding conversation, whether it makes common sense, and whether it can reasonably exist in this context.\n3. Based on the above factors, rate the reasonableness of the answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means unreasonable and 5 means very reasonable and able to form a logical connection with the preceding dialogue content and consistent with common sense.\n\nReasonableness:"
"reasonableness":"1. Read the question and determine the topic of the conversation and the direction the question expects the answer to go.\n2. Determine whether the answer can be logically connected to the preceding conversation, whether it makes common sense, and whether it can reasonably exist in this context.\n3. Based on the above factors, rate the reasonableness of the answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means unreasonable and 5 means very reasonable and able to form a logical connection with the preceding dialogue content and consistent with common sense.\n\nReasonableness:",
"fidelity":"1. Read the question carefully to understand how the character is set up and represented in the question, including aspects such as occupation, background, point of view, and personality.\n2. Read the question's request and confirm the details that need to be taken into account when answering the request.\n3. Compare the provided answer with the setting of the role and assess whether the answer can strictly adhere to the setting of the role.\n4. Combine the results of the above assessment to give a fidelity score ranging from 1 to 5, where a score of 1 means that the response does not match the persona at all, and a score of 5 means that the response fully complies with the persona and satisfies the given request.\n\nFidelity:"
},
"prompt":"You are a good assistant. Please rate the given answer to the \"chat\" question below.\n\nThe question is as follows:\n\n{question}\n\nThe answer is as follows:\n\n{answer}\n\nThe metric for evaluation is as follows:\n\n{metric}\n\nYou should follow the following evaluation steps:\n\n{steps}"
Michelle
1 year ago
committed by