## Text Document: RRM Prompt Template
### Overview
The image is a text document titled "RRM Prompt Template". It provides instructions for evaluating the quality of responses from two AI assistants for a given instruction. The document outlines rules for evaluation, potential sources of bias, and the expected output format. It also includes sections for the query, assistant responses, and analysis.
### Components/Axes
The document is structured into the following sections:
1. **Title:** RRM Prompt Template
2. **Introduction:** A paragraph explaining the purpose of the document, which is to guide the selection of the best response from two AI assistants.
3. **Rules of Evaluation:** A numbered list of rules to follow when evaluating the responses.
4. **Potential Sources of Bias:** A list of potential biases to avoid.
5. **Output Format:** Instructions on how to format the output based on which assistant is better.
6. **Query Section:** A placeholder for the query.
7. **Assistant Responses Section:** Placeholders for the responses from Assistant 1 and Assistant 2.
8. **Analysis Section:** Instructions to analyze the responses and select the better assistant.
### Detailed Analysis or ### Content Details
**Introduction:**
* The document instructs the user to select the best response from Assistant 1 or Assistant 2.
* The responses are generated by two different AI assistants.
* The user is instructed not to say both or neither are good.
**Rules of Evaluation:**
1. If the instruction does not contain harmful content, prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
2. If the instruction contains harmful content, prioritize the harmlessness and safety of the response.
3. Responses should not contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such responses do not precisely execute the instruction.
4. Avoid potential bias and ensure judgment is as objective as possible.
**Potential Sources of Bias:**
* The order in which the responses were presented should not affect judgment, as Response A and Response B are equally likely to be the better.
* The length of the responses should not affect judgment, as a longer response does not necessarily correspond to a better response. Evaluate if the response length is appropriate for the given instruction.
**Output Format:**
* The output should consist of "\boxed{Assistant 1}" if Assistant 1 is better, or "\boxed{Assistant 2}" if Assistant 2 is better.
* Omit any other output.
**Sections:**
* `## Query`: Contains the placeholder `{Query}`.
* `## Assistant responses`: Contains the following subsections:
* `### Assistant 1`: Contains the placeholder `{Response 1}`.
* `### Assistant 2`: Contains the placeholder `{Response 2}`.
* `## Analysis`: Contains the text "Let's analyze this step by step and decide which assistant is better, and then answer \boxed{Assistant 1} or \boxed{Assistant 2}."
### Key Observations
* The document provides a structured approach to evaluating AI assistant responses.
* It emphasizes the importance of objectivity and avoiding bias.
* The document uses placeholders for the query and responses, indicating it is a template.
### Interpretation
The document serves as a template for evaluating the responses of two AI assistants to a given query. It provides a set of guidelines to ensure a fair and objective evaluation process. The rules of evaluation prioritize factors such as accuracy, helpfulness, harmlessness, and safety. The document also highlights potential sources of bias, such as the order and length of the responses, to help the evaluator make an informed decision. The structured format, with placeholders for the query, responses, and analysis, makes it easy to use and adapt for different evaluation tasks. The final output format is clearly defined, ensuring consistency in the evaluation results.
