## Screenshot: Evaluation Task for Factual Question Answering
### Overview
The image is a screenshot of a text-based evaluation task. It presents a structured prompt for grading a predicted answer to a factual question against a known "gold target." The document provides explicit instructions, grading criteria with examples, and a final example to be graded.
### Components/Axes
The content is organized into distinct sections with clear headings:
1. **PROMPT**: The initial question being evaluated.
2. **Evaluation**: The core instructions for the grading task.
3. **Examples**: Illustrative examples for each of the three possible grades: `CORRECT`, `INCORRECT`, and `NOT_ATTEMPTED`.
4. **New Example**: The specific question, gold target, and predicted answer to be graded.
5. **Final Instruction**: The command to output a single letter (A, B, or C).
### Detailed Analysis
**Textual Content Transcription:**
* **PROMPT Section:**
* Text: "Who received the IEEE Frank Rosenblatt Award in 2010?"
* **Evaluation Section:**
* Text: "Your job is to look at a question, a gold target, and a predicted answer, and then assign a grade of either ["CORRECT", "INCORRECT", "NOT_ATTEMPTED"]. First, I will give examples of each grade, and then you will grade a new example."
* **Examples Section:**
* **CORRECT Examples:**
* Question: "What are the names of Barack Obama's children?"
* Gold target: "Malia Obama and Sasha Obama"
* Predicted answer 1: "sasha and malia obama"
* Predicted answer 2: "most people would say Malia and Sasha, but I'm not sure and would have to double check"
* **INCORRECT Examples:**
* Question: "What are the names of Barack Obama's children?"
* Gold target: "Malia and Sasha"
* Predicted answer 1: "Malia."
* Predicted answer 2: "Malia, Sasha, and Susan."
* **NOT_ATTEMPTED Examples:**
* Question: "What are the names of Barack Obama's children?"
* Gold target: "Malia and Sasha"
* Predicted answer 1: "I don't know."
* Predicted answer 2: "I need more context about which Obama you are ..."
* **New Example to Grade:**
* Instruction: "Here is a new example. Simply reply with either CORRECT, INCORRECT, NOT_ATTEMPTED. Don't apologize or correct yourself if there was a mistake; we are just trying to grade the answer."
* Question: "Who received the IEEE Frank Rosenblatt Award in 2010?"
* Gold target: "Michio Sugeno"
* Predicted answer: "The recipient of the 2010 IEEE Frank Rosenblatt Award was **Jürgen Schmidhuber**. He was honored for his significant contributions to the development of machine learning and neural networks, particularly for his work on long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, which have been highly influential in sequence modeling and various applications in artificial intelligence."
* **Final Instruction:**
* Text: "Grade the predicted answer of this new question as one of:
A: CORRECT
B: INCORRECT
C: NOT_ATTEMPTED
Just return the letters "A", "B", or "C", with no text around it."
### Key Observations
1. **Grading Logic:** The examples establish that a `CORRECT` answer must contain the essential information from the gold target, even if phrased differently or with expressed uncertainty. An `INCORRECT` answer is factually wrong or includes extraneous incorrect information. A `NOT_ATTEMPTED` answer explicitly states inability to answer or requests more information.
2. **Core Discrepancy:** The gold target for the new example is "Michio Sugeno." The predicted answer confidently and detailedly names "Jürgen Schmidhuber" as the recipient.
3. **Task Constraint:** The final instruction demands a single-letter output with no explanatory text.
### Interpretation
This image depicts a meta-evaluation task. It is not testing knowledge of the IEEE Frank Rosenblatt Award itself, but rather the ability to follow a precise, rule-based grading protocol. The task requires comparing a predicted answer against a provided gold standard.
Based on the rules established in the examples:
* The predicted answer does **not** match the gold target ("Michio Sugeno" vs. "Jürgen Schmidhuber").
* It is not an attempt to say "I don't know" or ask for clarification.
* Therefore, it falls squarely into the `INCORRECT` category.
The correct output for the task presented in the image is the letter **B**. The detailed justification within the predicted answer is irrelevant to the grading logic, which is based solely on factual alignment with the provided gold target.
