System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Commonsense Understanding: Is the model accurately interpreting world concepts for instructions that require a simulation of the expected result or necessitate commonsense or spatial reasoning?
Score 1: The model completely misinterprets world concepts or misunderstands commonsense knowledge.
Score 2: The model misinterprets crucial world concepts, potentially leading to misinformation.
Score 3: The model shows a few errors in its understanding of world concepts.
Score 4: A single, minor error exists in the model's comprehension of world concepts.
Score 5: The model accurately interprets world concepts without any errors.
Factuality: Did the model extract pertinent and accurate background knowledge without any misinformation when factual knowledge retrieval is needed? Is the response supported by reliable evidence or citation of the source of its information?
Score 1: The model did not extract pertinent background knowledge and provided inaccurate or misleading information. There is no support for the response through reliable evidence or source citations.
Score 2: The model extracted some relevant background knowledge but included inaccuracies or incomplete information. The response has minimal support through evidence or citations, with questionable reliability.
Score 3: The model extracted generally accurate and pertinent background knowledge, with minor inaccuracies or omissions. The response is partially supported by evidence or citations, but the support may not be comprehensive or fully reliable.
Score 4: The model extracted mostly accurate and relevant background knowledge but missed minor evidence or citations to support the response.
Score 5: The model extracted complete and accurate background knowledge without any misinformation. The response is fully supported by reliable evidence or citations that are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive in addressing the instruction.
[Instruction]
<TABLE>\n\n| Year | Competition | Venue | Position | Notes |\n| 1999 | World Youth Championships | Bydgoszcz, Poland | 12th | |\n| 2000 | World Junior Championships | Santiago, Chile | 5th | |\n| 2001 | European Junior Championships | Grosseto, Italy | 2nd | 61.97 m |\n| 2001 | World Championships | Edmonton, Canada | 23rd | 61.26 m |\n| 2002 | World Junior Championships | Kingston, Jamaica | 2nd | 63.91 m |\n| 2002 | European Championships | Munich, Germany | 26th | 60.28 m |\n| 2006 | European Championships | Gothenburg, Sweden | 26th | 62.39 m |\n| 2007 | World Student Games | Bangkok, Thailand | 5th | 64.95 m |\n| 2007 | World Championships | Osaka, Japan | 13th | 68.15 m |\n| 2008 | Olympic Games | Beijing, PR China | 8th | 71.00 m |\n| 2008 | World Athletics Final | Stuttgart, Germany | 2nd | 71.40 m |\n| 2009 | World Student Games | Belgrade, Serbia | 2nd | 72.85 m |\n| 2009 | World Championships | Berlin, Germany | 3rd | 74.79 m |\n| 2009 | World Athletics Final | Thessaloniki, Greece | 3rd | 70.45 m |\n| 2012 | European Championships | Helsinki, Finland | 2nd | 73.34 m |\n\n By referring to the given table, answer the below question.\nQuestion: 2002 and what other year did she rank 26th?

[Ground truth Answer]
2006

[Assistant's Response]
According to the provided table, she ranked 26th in the year 2002 and also in 2006.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: