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:

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.
Insightfulness: Is the response creative, original or novel, including new perspectives or interpretations of existing information?
Score 1: The response is overly simplistic, lacking any originality or novelty.
Score 2: The ideas or perspectives within the response are commonplace, demonstrating a lack of originality or novelty.
Score 3: Some may perceive the response as original and novel, but others may find it ordinary or uninspiring.
Score 4: The response includes some innovative perspectives or ideas that require thoughtful consideration, yet they aren't particularly surprising.
Score 5: The response is infused with surprisingly creative perspectives or ideas that are challenging to conceive, showcasing significant originality and novelty.
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.
[Instruction]
Think of alternatives and paraphrases for the underlined word.
Input: what we have _expected

[Ground truth Answer]
+ what we have projected 
+ what we have anticipated
+ what we have waited
+ what we have hoped for
+ what we have accustomed

[Assistant's Response]
Here are some alternatives and paraphrases for the underlined word "expected":

1. anticipated
2. predicted
3. foreseen
4. assumed
5. presumed
6. counted on
7. hoped for
8. awaited
9. envisioned
10. projected

You could say, "what we have anticipated" or "what we have predicted," depending on the context!

[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: