text stringlengths 0 464 |
|---|
<video> |
You are provided with a **video**, a corresponding **instruction**, and a **response** generated by a model. The instruction defines a **video understanding task**, which may take any form — including but not limited to open-ended question answering, captioning, instruction following, temporal reasoning, or multi-step ... |
Your task is to **evaluate the quality of the response**, considering how well it satisfies the task defined by the instruction, based on the content of the video. This is a holistic judgment and it should be based on the overall correctness, relevance, completeness, and grounding of the response. |
## Task |
For each response: |
- Assess how well it addresses the task in the instruction in the context of the video. |
- Consider whether the response is accurate, relevant, complete, and grounded in the video. |
- Provide a brief rationale explaining the overall quality and alignment of the response with the instruction inside `<thinking> </thinking>`. |
- Output a score from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) indicating the overall quality inside `<score> </score>`. |
## Rating Guidelines for Evaluation: |
- **Rating 5**: Fully accurate, complete, and well-grounded. The response precisely follows the instruction with no notable errors or omissions. |
- **Rating 4**: Mostly accurate with minor issues. The response preserves the key meaning and relevance, with only small lapses in detail or precision. |
- **Rating 3**: Partially correct. The response conveys the general idea but includes noticeable errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. |
- **Rating 2**: Poor alignment. The response has serious flaws and only loosely relates to the instruction or video. |
- **Rating 1**: Unrelated or incorrect. The response fails to reflect the video or follow the instruction meaningfully. |
## Input: |
Instruction: {instruction} |
Response: {response} |
## Output (Strict Format): |
<thinking>{your reasoning and explanation for the rating}</thinking> |
<score>{integer score from 1 to 5}</score> |
<video> |
You are provided with a **video**, a corresponding **instruction**, and **two candidate responses** generated by two models. |
The instruction defines a **video understanding task**, which may involve open-ended question answering, captioning, |
instruction following, temporal reasoning, or multi-step inference grounded in the video. Such tasks are open-ended |
and often require complex or nuanced reasoning over the visual and temporal content. |
Your task is to **compare the two responses** and decide which one better addresses the instruction, |
based on the content of the video. Make a holistic judgment that considers correctness, relevance, |
completeness, and grounding. |
## Task |
For the given pair of responses: |
- Judge which response better addresses the instruction in the context of the video. |
- Consider whether each response is accurate, relevant, complete, and grounded in the video. |
- Output only `A` or `B`, wrapped strictly inside `<answer></answer>` tags. |
## Evaluation Guidelines: |
- **Accuracy**: Prefer responses that are factually correct and consistent with the video. |
- **Relevance**: Prefer responses that directly answer the instruction without digression. |
- **Completeness**: Prefer responses that capture all key aspects needed for a full answer. |
- **Grounding**: Prefer responses clearly supported by the video, avoiding hallucinations. |
- If one response contains hallucinations, irrelevant content, or omissions, prefer the other. |
- If both responses are strong, choose the one that is more precise and detailed. |
- If both responses are weak, choose the one that is less flawed. |
## Input: |
Instruction: {instruction} |
Response A: {response_a} |
Response B: {response_b} |
## Output (Strict Format): |
<answer>{{A_or_B}}</answer> |
<video> |
You are provided with a **video**, a corresponding **instruction**, and **two candidate responses** generated by two models. |
The instruction defines a **video understanding task**, which may involve open-ended question answering, captioning, |
instruction following, temporal reasoning, or multi-step inference grounded in the video. Such tasks are open-ended |
and often require complex or nuanced reasoning over the visual and temporal content. |
Your task is to **compare the two responses** and decide which one better addresses the instruction, |
based on the content of the video. Make a holistic judgment that considers correctness, relevance, |
completeness, and grounding. |
## Task |
For the given pair of responses: |
- First, evaluate **Response A** (strengths and weaknesses). |
- Then, evaluate **Response B** (strengths and weaknesses). |
- Finally, compare them and decide which one better satisfies the instruction in the context of the video. |
- Ground your reasoning in the video content — treat it as if you are directly watching the video. |
- Write the reasoning inside `<thinking></thinking>`. |
- After the reasoning, output only `A` or `B`, wrapped strictly inside `<answer></answer>` tags. |
## Evaluation Guidelines: |
- **Accuracy**: Prefer responses that are factually correct and consistent with the video. |
- **Relevance**: Prefer responses that directly answer the instruction without digression. |
- **Completeness**: Prefer responses that capture all key aspects needed for a full answer. |
- **Grounding**: Prefer responses clearly supported by the video, avoiding hallucinations. |
- If one response contains hallucinations, irrelevant content, or omissions, prefer the other. |
- If both responses are strong, choose the one that is more precise and detailed. |
- If both responses are weak, choose the one that is less flawed. |
## Input: |
Instruction: {instruction} |
Response A: {response_a} |
Response B: {response_b} |
## Output (Strict Format): |
<thinking> |
{{Evaluate Response A -> Evaluate Response B -> Compare them concisely, explaining why one is better, grounded in the video.}} |
</thinking> |
<answer>{{A_or_B}}</answer> |
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 21