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:

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.
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.
Conciseness: Is the response presented in a concise manner for the reader without any unnecessary information?
Score 1: The response is highly redundant or contains a lot of unnecessary information, requiring a complete rewrite for optimal clarity and efficiency.
Score 2: The response lacks conciseness and needs a substantial rewrite for better optimization.
Score 3: The response is somewhat concise but includes unnecessary information, requiring some edits for improved optimization.
Score 4: The response is mostly concise but could benefit from minor edits for better optimization.
Score 5: The response is optimally concise and does not contain any unnecessary information, requiring no further optimization.
[Instruction]
pre_text: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 comparison of five-year cumulative total shareholder return altria group , inc . altria peer group s&p 500 part ii item 5 . market for registrant 2019s common equity , related stockholder matters and issuer purchases of equity securities . performance graph the graph below compares the cumulative total shareholder return of altria group , inc . 2019s common stock for the last ive years with the cumulative total return for the same period of the s&p 500 index and the altria group , inc . peer group ( 1 ) . the graph assumes the investment of $ 100 in common stock and each of the indices as of the market close on december 31 , 2011 and the reinvestment of all dividends on a quarterly basis . source : bloomberg - 201ctotal return analysis 201d calculated on a daily basis and assumes reinvestment of dividends as of the ex-dividend date . ( 1 ) in 2016 , the altria group , inc . peer group consisted of u.s.-headquartered consumer product companies that are competitors to altria group , inc . 2019s tobacco operating companies subsidiaries or that have been selected on the basis of revenue or market capitalization : campbell soup company , the coca-cola company , colgate-palmolive company , conagra brands , inc. , general mills , inc. , the hershey company , kellogg company , kimberly-clark corporation , the kraft heinz company , mondel 0113z international , inc. , pepsico , inc . and reynolds american inc . note - on october 1 , 2012 , kraft foods inc . ( kft ) spun off kraft foods group , inc . ( krft ) to its shareholders and then changed its name from kraft foods inc . to mondel 0113z international , inc . ( mdlz ) . on july 2 , 2015 , kraft foods group , inc . merged with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of h.j . heinz holding corporation , which was renamed the kraft heinz company ( khc ) . on june 12 , 2015 , reynolds american inc . ( rai ) acquired lorillard , inc . ( lo ) . on november 9 , 2016 , conagra foods , inc . ( cag ) spun off lamb weston holdings , inc . ( lw ) to its shareholders and then changed its name from conagra foods , inc . to conagra brands , inc . ( cag ) . . table: date altria group inc . altria group inc . peer group s&p 500 december 2011 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 december 2012 $ 111.77 $ 108.78 $ 115.99 december 2013 $ 143.69 $ 135.61 $ 153.55 december 2014 $ 193.28 $ 151.74 $ 174.55 december 2015 $ 237.92 $ 177.04 $ 176.94 december 2016 $ 286.61 $ 192.56 $ 198.09 post_text: altria altria group , inc . group , inc . peer group s&p 500 . question: did altria outperform the s&p 500?

[Ground truth Answer]
yes

[Assistant's Response]
Yes, Altria Group, Inc. significantly outperformed the S&P 500 over the five-year period from December 31, 2011, to December 31, 2016. 

To illustrate this, we can look at the cumulative total returns for a $100 investment in Altria and the S&P 500 at the end of this period:

- **Altria Group, Inc.**: $286.61
- **S&P 500**: $198.09

This means that an investment of $100 in Altria would have grown to $286.61, while the same investment in the S&P 500 would have grown to $198.09. This data clearly indicates that Altria provided a much higher return compared to the S&P 500 during these five years.

Additionally, a performance graph comparing Altria's cumulative total shareholder return with that of its peer group and the S&P 500 further confirms this trend. The peer group consisted of various U.S.-headquartered consumer product companies that are competitors or similar in market capitalization to Altria. Over the same period, Altria consistently outperformed both its peer group and the S&P 500, reinforcing its strong financial performance during these years. 

In summary, Altria Group, Inc. not only outperformed the S&P 500 but also demonstrated robust growth compared to its industry peers during the specified timeframe.

[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: