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:

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.
Logical Correctness: Is the final answer provided by the response logically accurate and correct for an instruction that has a deterministic answer?
Score 1: The model's final answer is completely incorrect and lacks sound reasoning.
Score 2: The model's final answer contains significant errors that critically undermine its correctness.
Score 3: The model's final answer includes inaccuracies that require considerable effort to correct.
Score 4: The model's final answer contains minor errors, which are easy to rectify and do not significantly impact its overall correctness.
Score 5: The model's final answer is completely accurate and sound.
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.
[Instruction]
pre_text: the aes corporation notes to consolidated financial statements 2014 ( continued ) december 31 , 2010 , 2009 , and 2008 recourse debt as of december 31 , 2010 is scheduled to reach maturity as set forth in the table below : december 31 , annual maturities ( in millions ) . table: december 31, annual maturities ( in millions ) 2011 $ 463 2012 2014 2013 2014 2014 497 2015 500 thereafter 3152 total recourse debt $ 4612 post_text: recourse debt transactions during 2010 , the company redeemed $ 690 million aggregate principal of its 8.75% ( 8.75 % ) second priority senior secured notes due 2013 ( 201cthe 2013 notes 201d ) . the 2013 notes were redeemed at a redemption price equal to 101.458% ( 101.458 % ) of the principal amount redeemed . the company recognized a pre-tax loss on the redemption of the 2013 notes of $ 15 million for the year ended december 31 , 2010 , which is included in 201cother expense 201d in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations . on july 29 , 2010 , the company entered into a second amendment ( 201camendment no . 2 201d ) to the fourth amended and restated credit and reimbursement agreement , dated as of july 29 , 2008 , among the company , various subsidiary guarantors and various lending institutions ( the 201cexisting credit agreement 201d ) that amends and restates the existing credit agreement ( as so amended and restated by amendment no . 2 , the 201cfifth amended and restated credit agreement 201d ) . the fifth amended and restated credit agreement adjusted the terms and conditions of the existing credit agreement , including the following changes : 2022 the aggregate commitment for the revolving credit loan facility was increased to $ 800 million ; 2022 the final maturity date of the revolving credit loan facility was extended to january 29 , 2015 ; 2022 changes to the facility fee applicable to the revolving credit loan facility ; 2022 the interest rate margin applicable to the revolving credit loan facility is now based on the credit rating assigned to the loans under the credit agreement , with pricing currently at libor + 3.00% ( 3.00 % ) ; 2022 there is an undrawn fee of 0.625% ( 0.625 % ) per annum ; 2022 the company may incur a combination of additional term loan and revolver commitments so long as total term loan and revolver commitments ( including those currently outstanding ) do not exceed $ 1.4 billion ; and 2022 the negative pledge ( i.e. , a cap on first lien debt ) of $ 3.0 billion . recourse debt covenants and guarantees certain of the company 2019s obligations under the senior secured credit facility are guaranteed by its direct subsidiaries through which the company owns its interests in the aes shady point , aes hawaii , aes warrior run and aes eastern energy businesses . the company 2019s obligations under the senior secured credit facility are , subject to certain exceptions , secured by : ( i ) all of the capital stock of domestic subsidiaries owned directly by the company and 65% ( 65 % ) of the capital stock of certain foreign subsidiaries owned directly or indirectly by the company ; and . question: what percent of total recourse debt is current?

[Ground truth Answer]
10%

[Assistant's Response]
To determine the percentage of total recourse debt that is current, we need to identify the portion of the debt that is due within one year. Based on the information provided:

- The amount due in 2011 (the current portion) is $463 million.
- The total recourse debt is $4,612 million.

We calculate the percentage of the total recourse debt that is current using the formula:

\[
\text{Percentage of current debt} = \left( \frac{\text{Current debt}}{\text{Total recourse debt}} \right) \times 100 = \left( \frac{463}{4612} \right) \times 100 \approx 10.04\%
\]

Therefore, approximately 10.04% of the total recourse debt is current.

[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: