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.
Completeness: Does the response provide a sufficient explanation? Comprehensiveness and thoroughness of the response should be considered, which depends on the breadth of topics covered and the level of detail provided within each topic.
Score 1: The response doesn't include any specifics or examples to support the statements made.
Score 2: The response does not provide sufficient details or supportive examples, requiring a major effort to make the response more complete.
Score 3: It is a decent response, but the breadth and depth of the response are rather limited. The details and examples used to substantiate the response may be insufficient.
Score 4: The response provides detailed explanations, but there is room for enhancement. The response could be further improved by including more details and supportive examples.
Score 5: The response fully provides comprehensive explanations. It delves deep into the topic, providing as much detail as possible, and it offers several examples to back up its points.
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]
The following are sentences in Adna and their English translations:\n\nADNA: Ndengi ngase.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He drinks water.\nADNA: Ngoru ndatab ndengi ngase.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: The child keeps drinking water.\nADNA: Ngoru ndabgu.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: The child grows.\nADNA: Ngoru ndatab ndangalan.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: The child keeps crawling.\nADNA: Ndimbi ndamba.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He runs here.\nADNA: Ndavera Ambandate ndisbo.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He pulls Ambandate down.\nADNA: Ambandate ndisbo.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: Ambandate goes down.\nADNA: Ndekaselib luta ndaksay.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He carries the axe up.\nADNA: Ndalbande ngase ndamba.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He brings water.\nADNA: Kansasres ndimbi ndaksay.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: The teacher runs up.\nADNA: Ngase ndimbi.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: The water runs.\nADNA: Ambandate ndokami.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: Ambandate eats.\nADNA: Ndekaselib tebu.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He carries taro.\nADNA: Ndahadal.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He walks.\nADNA: Ndalbande kubutsu.\nENGLISH TRANSLATION: He brings the palm tree.\n\n\nNow, translate the following from Adna to English: Kansasres ndekaselib tebu ndamba.

[Ground truth Answer]
The teacher carries taro here.

[Assistant's Response]
The translation of "Kansasres ndekaselib tebu ndamba" from Adna to English is: "The teacher carries taro."

[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: