You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Numbers of parents have kept their children off school for the day in a protest about primary tests in England. By Sean CoughlanEducation correspondent More than 40,000 parents have signed a petition calling for a boycott of primary school tests, which are due to be taken later this month. Parents supporting the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign have complained of a damaging culture of over-testing. Education Secretary Nicky Morgan says taking pupils out of school "even for a day is harmful to their education". It remains uncertain how many primary school children were kept off school across the country, but a social media campaign had urged parents to take children on educational activities for the day. About 500 people gathered at Preston Park in Brighton, including children's laureate Chris Riddell. "We should be turning children into readers with the pleasure that gives, rather than relying on a testing culture," said Mr Riddell. Parents have handed in the petition at the headquarters of the Department for Education in London. Among the parents present was Caterina, with son and daughter in Ivydale school in Nunhead, south London. The campaign organisers say children are "over-tested, over-worked and in a school system that places more importance on test results and league tables than children's happiness and joy of learning". They have raised concerns about the impact of primary tests, so-called Sats tests, taken by seven-year-olds and 11-year-olds, which are being made more stretching with changes to the curriculum. They have challenged what they claim is a "dull, dry curriculum" based around tests. In an open letter to the education secretary, campaigners have warned of schools becoming "exam factories" and that testing causes stress and can make young children feel like "failures". Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw rejected these arguments, saying that improving social mobility depended on making sure that children are not falling behind at any early age. "The government is right to introduce greater structure and rigour into the assessment process. Those who oppose this testing need to consider England's mediocre position in the OECD education rankings," said Sir Michael. "As I have long argued, children who fall behind in the early years of their education struggle to catch up in later years." Education Minister Nick Gibb said tests improved standards and need not be stressful. "Schools should not be putting pressure on young people when taking these assessments. "I've been to many schools where the children don't even know they're taking the tests," said Mr Gibb. The importance of testing was emphasised by Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education. He said that any short-term stress was worth it if in the longer term it meant that children finished school with better results. Schools minister Nick Gibb was asked a question on BBC Radio 4's World at One from a grammar test for 11 year olds Martha Kearney: Let me give you this sentence: "I went to the cinema, after I'd eaten my dinner." Is the word "after" there being used as a subordinating conjunction or a preposition? Nick Gibb: Well it's a preposition. Martha Kearney: I don't think it is. Nick Gibb: "After" is a preposition. It can be used in some contexts as a word that coordinates a sub-clause, but this isn't about me. Martha Kearney: But I think in this sentence it's being used as a subordinating conjunction. Nick Gibb: Fine, well this isn't about me, this is about ensuring that future generations of children - unlike me incidentally, who was not taught grammar at primary school... Martha Kearney: Perhaps not. Nick Gibb: ...We need to make sure that future generations of children are taught grammar properly." Mr McGovern said that tests in England's schools needed to be tougher to catch up with international competitors. "We're three years behind the Chinese at the age of 15. We are a bit of a basket case internationally. "We've got to do something, we've got to act early, and a health check at seven is a good idea." Ministers have already had problems with the administration of primary school tests this year. The baseline tests, which were intended to be a benchmark for measuring progress, were found to have unreliable results and have been postponed. Tests for seven-year-olds in spelling, punctuation and grammar also had to be called off when it was found that test questions had mistakenly been published on a Department for Education website. Labour's shadow education secretary Lucy Powell said she did not "condone children being taken out of school". But she accused the government of "creating chaos and confusion in primary assessment". Russell Hobby, leader of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "I think the gap between the profession and the government has never been wider than it is at the moment." He warned of "an enormous number of mistakes, delays and confusions around testing". But Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has argued that raising standards will improve creativity and not restrict it. "How creative can a child be if they struggle to understand the words on the page in front of them?" Mrs Morgan told head teachers at the weekend. "That is why the campaign led by some of those who do not think we should set high expectations, who want to keep their children home for a day is so damaging. "Keeping children home, even for a day is harmful to their education."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize why parents protest about primary tests in England.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Parents are protesting about primary tests in England because they believe that the tests are harmful to children's education. They are concerned about the impact of the tests on children's stress levels and their ability to learn. They also believe that the tests are not an accurate measure of children's progress.

# Output (a):
Parents protest about primary tests because of a damaging culture of over-testing. The campaign organisers say children are "over-tested, over-worked and in a school system that places more importance on test results and league tables than children's happiness and joy of learning". They have raised concerns about the impact of primary tests, which are being made more stretching with changes to the curriculum. They have challenged what they claim is a "dull, dry curriculum" based around tests. Campaigners have warned of schools becoming "exam factories" and that testing causes stress and can make young children feel like "failures".

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Numbers of parents have kept their children off school for the day in a protest about primary tests in England. By Sean CoughlanEducation correspondent More than 40,000 parents have signed a petition calling for a boycott of primary school tests, which are due to be taken later this month. Parents supporting the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign have complained of a damaging culture of over-testing. Education Secretary Nicky Morgan says taking pupils out of school "even for a day is harmful to their education". It remains uncertain how many primary school children were kept off school across the country, but a social media campaign had urged parents to take children on educational activities for the day. About 500 people gathered at Preston Park in Brighton, including children's laureate Chris Riddell. "We should be turning children into readers with the pleasure that gives, rather than relying on a testing culture," said Mr Riddell. Parents have handed in the petition at the headquarters of the Department for Education in London. Among the parents present was Caterina, with son and daughter in Ivydale school in Nunhead, south London. The campaign organisers say children are "over-tested, over-worked and in a school system that places more importance on test results and league tables than children's happiness and joy of learning". They have raised concerns about the impact of primary tests, so-called Sats tests, taken by seven-year-olds and 11-year-olds, which are being made more stretching with changes to the curriculum. They have challenged what they claim is a "dull, dry curriculum" based around tests. In an open letter to the education secretary, campaigners have warned of schools becoming "exam factories" and that testing causes stress and can make young children feel like "failures". Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw rejected these arguments, saying that improving social mobility depended on making sure that children are not falling behind at any early age. "The government is right to introduce greater structure and rigour into the assessment process. Those who oppose this testing need to consider England's mediocre position in the OECD education rankings," said Sir Michael. "As I have long argued, children who fall behind in the early years of their education struggle to catch up in later years." Education Minister Nick Gibb said tests improved standards and need not be stressful. "Schools should not be putting pressure on young people when taking these assessments. "I've been to many schools where the children don't even know they're taking the tests," said Mr Gibb. The importance of testing was emphasised by Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education. He said that any short-term stress was worth it if in the longer term it meant that children finished school with better results. Schools minister Nick Gibb was asked a question on BBC Radio 4's World at One from a grammar test for 11 year olds Martha Kearney: Let me give you this sentence: "I went to the cinema, after I'd eaten my dinner." Is the word "after" there being used as a subordinating conjunction or a preposition? Nick Gibb: Well it's a preposition. Martha Kearney: I don't think it is. Nick Gibb: "After" is a preposition. It can be used in some contexts as a word that coordinates a sub-clause, but this isn't about me. Martha Kearney: But I think in this sentence it's being used as a subordinating conjunction. Nick Gibb: Fine, well this isn't about me, this is about ensuring that future generations of children - unlike me incidentally, who was not taught grammar at primary school... Martha Kearney: Perhaps not. Nick Gibb: ...We need to make sure that future generations of children are taught grammar properly." Mr McGovern said that tests in England's schools needed to be tougher to catch up with international competitors. "We're three years behind the Chinese at the age of 15. We are a bit of a basket case internationally. "We've got to do something, we've got to act early, and a health check at seven is a good idea." Ministers have already had problems with the administration of primary school tests this year. The baseline tests, which were intended to be a benchmark for measuring progress, were found to have unreliable results and have been postponed. Tests for seven-year-olds in spelling, punctuation and grammar also had to be called off when it was found that test questions had mistakenly been published on a Department for Education website. Labour's shadow education secretary Lucy Powell said she did not "condone children being taken out of school". But she accused the government of "creating chaos and confusion in primary assessment". Russell Hobby, leader of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "I think the gap between the profession and the government has never been wider than it is at the moment." He warned of "an enormous number of mistakes, delays and confusions around testing". But Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has argued that raising standards will improve creativity and not restrict it. "How creative can a child be if they struggle to understand the words on the page in front of them?" Mrs Morgan told head teachers at the weekend. "That is why the campaign led by some of those who do not think we should set high expectations, who want to keep their children home for a day is so damaging. "Keeping children home, even for a day is harmful to their education."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize why parents protest about primary tests in England.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Parents protest about primary tests because of a damaging culture of over-testing. The campaign organisers say children are "over-tested, over-worked and in a school system that places more importance on test results and league tables than children's happiness and joy of learning". They have raised concerns about the impact of primary tests, which are being made more stretching with changes to the curriculum. They have challenged what they claim is a "dull, dry curriculum" based around tests. Campaigners have warned of schools becoming "exam factories" and that testing causes stress and can make young children feel like "failures".

Parents are protesting about primary tests in England because they believe that the tests are harmful to children's education. They are concerned about the impact of the tests on children's stress levels and their ability to learn. They also believe that the tests are not an accurate measure of children's progress.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Olivier Hoedeman takes people on unusual tours of Brussels - he opens their eyes to the billions of euros that multinationals, unions and campaign groups spend trying to shape - even rewrite - the European laws made there. By Jane DeithFile on 4, Brussels The research and campaign coordinator of Corporate Europe Observatory - which monitors lobbying - pauses outside a smart office block, a few streets away from the European Parliament. He points to the second floor and the offices of British American Tobacco. It has seven full-time lobbyists here and Mr Hoedeman says the tobacco industry as a whole employs around 100 in Brussels, spending more than 5m euros (£4.3m; $6.6m) a year. Those numbers have grown as the industry fights proposed new regulation. The European Commission is beefing up the Tobacco Products Directive, to try to dissuade young people from smoking. So, for example, there would be a ban on menthol cigarettes and some other flavourings and bigger pictorial health warnings on packets. Lobbying battlefield Tobacco firms "directly lobby MEPs, trying to meet with him or her to talk them into tabling amendments, but also [organise] social events, like dinner parties for MEPs' assistants," Mr Hoedeman says. "We have already seen in several of the votes of committees of parliament that the Commission's proposals are being weakened. It shows they're gaining ground and achieving that goal." The lobbying appears to be having an impact. Almost 1,500 amendments to the tobacco directive have been tabled. The EU's health ministers, for example, voted to drop a ban on slim cigarettes, and reduce the size of the graphic health warnings, from the 75% the European Commission wanted, to 65%. But last week the parliament's public health committee voted to keep that ban, as well as a ban on cigarette flavourings, and backed the 75% target. So more hard bargaining lies ahead, and the full parliament will vote on 10 September. The EU has an online database of lobbyists called the Transparency Register. But it does not tell the whole story: the register is voluntary and hundreds of lobbyists simply choose not to reveal themselves. There is no information about whom they have lobbied. Special rules are supposed to apply to the tobacco industry. The EU has signed up to a World Health Organization treaty which says politicians should avoid meeting tobacco companies; if they must, the meeting has to be transparent. But the British MEP piloting the tobacco legislation through parliament, Linda McAvan, says that away from the main lobbying battlefield the tobacco companies have been firing salvoes below the radar. She accuses one of ringing her constituency office, posing as a representative of small retailers to demand an urgent meeting. 'Legal company' Other tobacco lobbyists, she said, have been handing out anonymous amendments to MEPs, in the hope they will be put forward. "If they think it's legitimate, why are doing it like that? Why don't they just operate like every other company that lobbies the European Parliament and just send it out in a normal email? I think they know that if people know they're from the tobacco industry, they'll be suspicious of the arguments they make," said Ms McAvan. Ronan Barry describes himself as a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco and heads their Brussels lobbying operation, which cost nearly 1m euros to run last year. He says his company is always open and honest, and he does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP. He believes tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and says the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. "We sell a legal product and are a legal company and therefore have a role to play in communicating our point of view to people who make decisions that impact upon us. There are certainly at least as many lobbyists arguing against our positions as there are arguing for them, so it's not true to say there are armies of us here lobbying," said Mr Barry. A British Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, echoed that view. "This idea they put across that it's a sort of David and Goliath - these industrial giants with thousands of well-paid, suited lobbyists and only one or two little NGOs representing the oppressed common man is very, very far from the truth - it's the other way round if anything." On average, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Brussels get 43% of their funding from EU institutions. 'Billions of euros' In the past year the lobbying debate on both sides has been overshadowed by a scandal involving the former commissioner who was supposed to be driving the tobacco directive, John Dalli. At the centre of so-called "Dalligate" is an allegation that a friend of Mr Dalli asked for 60m euros to overturn a ban on snus - a moist chewing tobacco which you put under your lip. Mr Dalli and his friend both strenuously deny the allegation. An investigation by Europe's anti-fraud office Olaf says that although it has circumstantial evidence linking Mr Dalli to the bribe request, that evidence is not conclusive. Speaking from his home in Malta, Mr Dalli claims he is the victim of a conspiracy: "I was considered as a person who was very hard on the tobacco industry and they didn't want that during their campaign. "I'm already hearing about a lot of dilution that is being made to the directive because of the tobacco lobbies that have been very active. "I'm afraid that what's going to go through, if it goes through, is not as effective as one would like and what is the gain? The gain is billions of euros."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the opinions of Ronan Barry in the article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Ronan Barry, the head of British American Tobacco's Brussels lobbying operation, believes that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. He says that his company is always open and honest, and does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP.

# Output (a):
Ronan Barry, a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that his company is always open and honest in their lobbying efforts and that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business. He also states that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated and that there are at least as many lobbyists arguing against their positions as there are for them. Barry argues that they sell a legal product and are a legal company, therefore they have a role to play in communicating their point of view to decision-makers.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Olivier Hoedeman takes people on unusual tours of Brussels - he opens their eyes to the billions of euros that multinationals, unions and campaign groups spend trying to shape - even rewrite - the European laws made there. By Jane DeithFile on 4, Brussels The research and campaign coordinator of Corporate Europe Observatory - which monitors lobbying - pauses outside a smart office block, a few streets away from the European Parliament. He points to the second floor and the offices of British American Tobacco. It has seven full-time lobbyists here and Mr Hoedeman says the tobacco industry as a whole employs around 100 in Brussels, spending more than 5m euros (£4.3m; $6.6m) a year. Those numbers have grown as the industry fights proposed new regulation. The European Commission is beefing up the Tobacco Products Directive, to try to dissuade young people from smoking. So, for example, there would be a ban on menthol cigarettes and some other flavourings and bigger pictorial health warnings on packets. Lobbying battlefield Tobacco firms "directly lobby MEPs, trying to meet with him or her to talk them into tabling amendments, but also [organise] social events, like dinner parties for MEPs' assistants," Mr Hoedeman says. "We have already seen in several of the votes of committees of parliament that the Commission's proposals are being weakened. It shows they're gaining ground and achieving that goal." The lobbying appears to be having an impact. Almost 1,500 amendments to the tobacco directive have been tabled. The EU's health ministers, for example, voted to drop a ban on slim cigarettes, and reduce the size of the graphic health warnings, from the 75% the European Commission wanted, to 65%. But last week the parliament's public health committee voted to keep that ban, as well as a ban on cigarette flavourings, and backed the 75% target. So more hard bargaining lies ahead, and the full parliament will vote on 10 September. The EU has an online database of lobbyists called the Transparency Register. But it does not tell the whole story: the register is voluntary and hundreds of lobbyists simply choose not to reveal themselves. There is no information about whom they have lobbied. Special rules are supposed to apply to the tobacco industry. The EU has signed up to a World Health Organization treaty which says politicians should avoid meeting tobacco companies; if they must, the meeting has to be transparent. But the British MEP piloting the tobacco legislation through parliament, Linda McAvan, says that away from the main lobbying battlefield the tobacco companies have been firing salvoes below the radar. She accuses one of ringing her constituency office, posing as a representative of small retailers to demand an urgent meeting. 'Legal company' Other tobacco lobbyists, she said, have been handing out anonymous amendments to MEPs, in the hope they will be put forward. "If they think it's legitimate, why are doing it like that? Why don't they just operate like every other company that lobbies the European Parliament and just send it out in a normal email? I think they know that if people know they're from the tobacco industry, they'll be suspicious of the arguments they make," said Ms McAvan. Ronan Barry describes himself as a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco and heads their Brussels lobbying operation, which cost nearly 1m euros to run last year. He says his company is always open and honest, and he does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP. He believes tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and says the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. "We sell a legal product and are a legal company and therefore have a role to play in communicating our point of view to people who make decisions that impact upon us. There are certainly at least as many lobbyists arguing against our positions as there are arguing for them, so it's not true to say there are armies of us here lobbying," said Mr Barry. A British Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, echoed that view. "This idea they put across that it's a sort of David and Goliath - these industrial giants with thousands of well-paid, suited lobbyists and only one or two little NGOs representing the oppressed common man is very, very far from the truth - it's the other way round if anything." On average, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Brussels get 43% of their funding from EU institutions. 'Billions of euros' In the past year the lobbying debate on both sides has been overshadowed by a scandal involving the former commissioner who was supposed to be driving the tobacco directive, John Dalli. At the centre of so-called "Dalligate" is an allegation that a friend of Mr Dalli asked for 60m euros to overturn a ban on snus - a moist chewing tobacco which you put under your lip. Mr Dalli and his friend both strenuously deny the allegation. An investigation by Europe's anti-fraud office Olaf says that although it has circumstantial evidence linking Mr Dalli to the bribe request, that evidence is not conclusive. Speaking from his home in Malta, Mr Dalli claims he is the victim of a conspiracy: "I was considered as a person who was very hard on the tobacco industry and they didn't want that during their campaign. "I'm already hearing about a lot of dilution that is being made to the directive because of the tobacco lobbies that have been very active. "I'm afraid that what's going to go through, if it goes through, is not as effective as one would like and what is the gain? The gain is billions of euros."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the opinions of Ronan Barry in the article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Ronan Barry, a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that his company is always open and honest in their lobbying efforts and that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business. He also states that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated and that there are at least as many lobbyists arguing against their positions as there are for them. Barry argues that they sell a legal product and are a legal company, therefore they have a role to play in communicating their point of view to decision-makers.

Ronan Barry, the head of British American Tobacco's Brussels lobbying operation, believes that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. He says that his company is always open and honest, and does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Olivier Hoedeman takes people on unusual tours of Brussels - he opens their eyes to the billions of euros that multinationals, unions and campaign groups spend trying to shape - even rewrite - the European laws made there. By Jane DeithFile on 4, Brussels The research and campaign coordinator of Corporate Europe Observatory - which monitors lobbying - pauses outside a smart office block, a few streets away from the European Parliament. He points to the second floor and the offices of British American Tobacco. It has seven full-time lobbyists here and Mr Hoedeman says the tobacco industry as a whole employs around 100 in Brussels, spending more than 5m euros (£4.3m; $6.6m) a year. Those numbers have grown as the industry fights proposed new regulation. The European Commission is beefing up the Tobacco Products Directive, to try to dissuade young people from smoking. So, for example, there would be a ban on menthol cigarettes and some other flavourings and bigger pictorial health warnings on packets. Lobbying battlefield Tobacco firms "directly lobby MEPs, trying to meet with him or her to talk them into tabling amendments, but also [organise] social events, like dinner parties for MEPs' assistants," Mr Hoedeman says. "We have already seen in several of the votes of committees of parliament that the Commission's proposals are being weakened. It shows they're gaining ground and achieving that goal." The lobbying appears to be having an impact. Almost 1,500 amendments to the tobacco directive have been tabled. The EU's health ministers, for example, voted to drop a ban on slim cigarettes, and reduce the size of the graphic health warnings, from the 75% the European Commission wanted, to 65%. But last week the parliament's public health committee voted to keep that ban, as well as a ban on cigarette flavourings, and backed the 75% target. So more hard bargaining lies ahead, and the full parliament will vote on 10 September. The EU has an online database of lobbyists called the Transparency Register. But it does not tell the whole story: the register is voluntary and hundreds of lobbyists simply choose not to reveal themselves. There is no information about whom they have lobbied. Special rules are supposed to apply to the tobacco industry. The EU has signed up to a World Health Organization treaty which says politicians should avoid meeting tobacco companies; if they must, the meeting has to be transparent. But the British MEP piloting the tobacco legislation through parliament, Linda McAvan, says that away from the main lobbying battlefield the tobacco companies have been firing salvoes below the radar. She accuses one of ringing her constituency office, posing as a representative of small retailers to demand an urgent meeting. 'Legal company' Other tobacco lobbyists, she said, have been handing out anonymous amendments to MEPs, in the hope they will be put forward. "If they think it's legitimate, why are doing it like that? Why don't they just operate like every other company that lobbies the European Parliament and just send it out in a normal email? I think they know that if people know they're from the tobacco industry, they'll be suspicious of the arguments they make," said Ms McAvan. Ronan Barry describes himself as a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco and heads their Brussels lobbying operation, which cost nearly 1m euros to run last year. He says his company is always open and honest, and he does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP. He believes tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and says the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. "We sell a legal product and are a legal company and therefore have a role to play in communicating our point of view to people who make decisions that impact upon us. There are certainly at least as many lobbyists arguing against our positions as there are arguing for them, so it's not true to say there are armies of us here lobbying," said Mr Barry. A British Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, echoed that view. "This idea they put across that it's a sort of David and Goliath - these industrial giants with thousands of well-paid, suited lobbyists and only one or two little NGOs representing the oppressed common man is very, very far from the truth - it's the other way round if anything." On average, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Brussels get 43% of their funding from EU institutions. 'Billions of euros' In the past year the lobbying debate on both sides has been overshadowed by a scandal involving the former commissioner who was supposed to be driving the tobacco directive, John Dalli. At the centre of so-called "Dalligate" is an allegation that a friend of Mr Dalli asked for 60m euros to overturn a ban on snus - a moist chewing tobacco which you put under your lip. Mr Dalli and his friend both strenuously deny the allegation. An investigation by Europe's anti-fraud office Olaf says that although it has circumstantial evidence linking Mr Dalli to the bribe request, that evidence is not conclusive. Speaking from his home in Malta, Mr Dalli claims he is the victim of a conspiracy: "I was considered as a person who was very hard on the tobacco industry and they didn't want that during their campaign. "I'm already hearing about a lot of dilution that is being made to the directive because of the tobacco lobbies that have been very active. "I'm afraid that what's going to go through, if it goes through, is not as effective as one would like and what is the gain? The gain is billions of euros."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the opinions of Ronan Barry in the article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Ronan Barry, the corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. He also states that his company is always open and honest and does not recognize the tactics described by the MEP.

# Output (a):
Ronan Barry, a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that his company is always open and honest in their lobbying efforts and that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business. He also states that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated and that there are at least as many lobbyists arguing against their positions as there are for them. Barry argues that they sell a legal product and are a legal company, therefore they have a role to play in communicating their point of view to decision-makers.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Olivier Hoedeman takes people on unusual tours of Brussels - he opens their eyes to the billions of euros that multinationals, unions and campaign groups spend trying to shape - even rewrite - the European laws made there. By Jane DeithFile on 4, Brussels The research and campaign coordinator of Corporate Europe Observatory - which monitors lobbying - pauses outside a smart office block, a few streets away from the European Parliament. He points to the second floor and the offices of British American Tobacco. It has seven full-time lobbyists here and Mr Hoedeman says the tobacco industry as a whole employs around 100 in Brussels, spending more than 5m euros (£4.3m; $6.6m) a year. Those numbers have grown as the industry fights proposed new regulation. The European Commission is beefing up the Tobacco Products Directive, to try to dissuade young people from smoking. So, for example, there would be a ban on menthol cigarettes and some other flavourings and bigger pictorial health warnings on packets. Lobbying battlefield Tobacco firms "directly lobby MEPs, trying to meet with him or her to talk them into tabling amendments, but also [organise] social events, like dinner parties for MEPs' assistants," Mr Hoedeman says. "We have already seen in several of the votes of committees of parliament that the Commission's proposals are being weakened. It shows they're gaining ground and achieving that goal." The lobbying appears to be having an impact. Almost 1,500 amendments to the tobacco directive have been tabled. The EU's health ministers, for example, voted to drop a ban on slim cigarettes, and reduce the size of the graphic health warnings, from the 75% the European Commission wanted, to 65%. But last week the parliament's public health committee voted to keep that ban, as well as a ban on cigarette flavourings, and backed the 75% target. So more hard bargaining lies ahead, and the full parliament will vote on 10 September. The EU has an online database of lobbyists called the Transparency Register. But it does not tell the whole story: the register is voluntary and hundreds of lobbyists simply choose not to reveal themselves. There is no information about whom they have lobbied. Special rules are supposed to apply to the tobacco industry. The EU has signed up to a World Health Organization treaty which says politicians should avoid meeting tobacco companies; if they must, the meeting has to be transparent. But the British MEP piloting the tobacco legislation through parliament, Linda McAvan, says that away from the main lobbying battlefield the tobacco companies have been firing salvoes below the radar. She accuses one of ringing her constituency office, posing as a representative of small retailers to demand an urgent meeting. 'Legal company' Other tobacco lobbyists, she said, have been handing out anonymous amendments to MEPs, in the hope they will be put forward. "If they think it's legitimate, why are doing it like that? Why don't they just operate like every other company that lobbies the European Parliament and just send it out in a normal email? I think they know that if people know they're from the tobacco industry, they'll be suspicious of the arguments they make," said Ms McAvan. Ronan Barry describes himself as a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco and heads their Brussels lobbying operation, which cost nearly 1m euros to run last year. He says his company is always open and honest, and he does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP. He believes tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and says the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. "We sell a legal product and are a legal company and therefore have a role to play in communicating our point of view to people who make decisions that impact upon us. There are certainly at least as many lobbyists arguing against our positions as there are arguing for them, so it's not true to say there are armies of us here lobbying," said Mr Barry. A British Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, echoed that view. "This idea they put across that it's a sort of David and Goliath - these industrial giants with thousands of well-paid, suited lobbyists and only one or two little NGOs representing the oppressed common man is very, very far from the truth - it's the other way round if anything." On average, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Brussels get 43% of their funding from EU institutions. 'Billions of euros' In the past year the lobbying debate on both sides has been overshadowed by a scandal involving the former commissioner who was supposed to be driving the tobacco directive, John Dalli. At the centre of so-called "Dalligate" is an allegation that a friend of Mr Dalli asked for 60m euros to overturn a ban on snus - a moist chewing tobacco which you put under your lip. Mr Dalli and his friend both strenuously deny the allegation. An investigation by Europe's anti-fraud office Olaf says that although it has circumstantial evidence linking Mr Dalli to the bribe request, that evidence is not conclusive. Speaking from his home in Malta, Mr Dalli claims he is the victim of a conspiracy: "I was considered as a person who was very hard on the tobacco industry and they didn't want that during their campaign. "I'm already hearing about a lot of dilution that is being made to the directive because of the tobacco lobbies that have been very active. "I'm afraid that what's going to go through, if it goes through, is not as effective as one would like and what is the gain? The gain is billions of euros."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the opinions of Ronan Barry in the article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Ronan Barry, a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that his company is always open and honest in their lobbying efforts and that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business. He also states that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated and that there are at least as many lobbyists arguing against their positions as there are for them. Barry argues that they sell a legal product and are a legal company, therefore they have a role to play in communicating their point of view to decision-makers.

Ronan Barry, the corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. He also states that his company is always open and honest and does not recognize the tactics described by the MEP.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Olivier Hoedeman takes people on unusual tours of Brussels - he opens their eyes to the billions of euros that multinationals, unions and campaign groups spend trying to shape - even rewrite - the European laws made there. By Jane DeithFile on 4, Brussels The research and campaign coordinator of Corporate Europe Observatory - which monitors lobbying - pauses outside a smart office block, a few streets away from the European Parliament. He points to the second floor and the offices of British American Tobacco. It has seven full-time lobbyists here and Mr Hoedeman says the tobacco industry as a whole employs around 100 in Brussels, spending more than 5m euros (£4.3m; $6.6m) a year. Those numbers have grown as the industry fights proposed new regulation. The European Commission is beefing up the Tobacco Products Directive, to try to dissuade young people from smoking. So, for example, there would be a ban on menthol cigarettes and some other flavourings and bigger pictorial health warnings on packets. Lobbying battlefield Tobacco firms "directly lobby MEPs, trying to meet with him or her to talk them into tabling amendments, but also [organise] social events, like dinner parties for MEPs' assistants," Mr Hoedeman says. "We have already seen in several of the votes of committees of parliament that the Commission's proposals are being weakened. It shows they're gaining ground and achieving that goal." The lobbying appears to be having an impact. Almost 1,500 amendments to the tobacco directive have been tabled. The EU's health ministers, for example, voted to drop a ban on slim cigarettes, and reduce the size of the graphic health warnings, from the 75% the European Commission wanted, to 65%. But last week the parliament's public health committee voted to keep that ban, as well as a ban on cigarette flavourings, and backed the 75% target. So more hard bargaining lies ahead, and the full parliament will vote on 10 September. The EU has an online database of lobbyists called the Transparency Register. But it does not tell the whole story: the register is voluntary and hundreds of lobbyists simply choose not to reveal themselves. There is no information about whom they have lobbied. Special rules are supposed to apply to the tobacco industry. The EU has signed up to a World Health Organization treaty which says politicians should avoid meeting tobacco companies; if they must, the meeting has to be transparent. But the British MEP piloting the tobacco legislation through parliament, Linda McAvan, says that away from the main lobbying battlefield the tobacco companies have been firing salvoes below the radar. She accuses one of ringing her constituency office, posing as a representative of small retailers to demand an urgent meeting. 'Legal company' Other tobacco lobbyists, she said, have been handing out anonymous amendments to MEPs, in the hope they will be put forward. "If they think it's legitimate, why are doing it like that? Why don't they just operate like every other company that lobbies the European Parliament and just send it out in a normal email? I think they know that if people know they're from the tobacco industry, they'll be suspicious of the arguments they make," said Ms McAvan. Ronan Barry describes himself as a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco and heads their Brussels lobbying operation, which cost nearly 1m euros to run last year. He says his company is always open and honest, and he does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP. He believes tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and says the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. "We sell a legal product and are a legal company and therefore have a role to play in communicating our point of view to people who make decisions that impact upon us. There are certainly at least as many lobbyists arguing against our positions as there are arguing for them, so it's not true to say there are armies of us here lobbying," said Mr Barry. A British Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, echoed that view. "This idea they put across that it's a sort of David and Goliath - these industrial giants with thousands of well-paid, suited lobbyists and only one or two little NGOs representing the oppressed common man is very, very far from the truth - it's the other way round if anything." On average, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Brussels get 43% of their funding from EU institutions. 'Billions of euros' In the past year the lobbying debate on both sides has been overshadowed by a scandal involving the former commissioner who was supposed to be driving the tobacco directive, John Dalli. At the centre of so-called "Dalligate" is an allegation that a friend of Mr Dalli asked for 60m euros to overturn a ban on snus - a moist chewing tobacco which you put under your lip. Mr Dalli and his friend both strenuously deny the allegation. An investigation by Europe's anti-fraud office Olaf says that although it has circumstantial evidence linking Mr Dalli to the bribe request, that evidence is not conclusive. Speaking from his home in Malta, Mr Dalli claims he is the victim of a conspiracy: "I was considered as a person who was very hard on the tobacco industry and they didn't want that during their campaign. "I'm already hearing about a lot of dilution that is being made to the directive because of the tobacco lobbies that have been very active. "I'm afraid that what's going to go through, if it goes through, is not as effective as one would like and what is the gain? The gain is billions of euros."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the opinions of Ronan Barry in the article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Ronan Barry, the corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. He also states that his company is always open and honest and does not recognize the tactics described by the MEP.

# Output (a):
Ronan Barry, a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that his company is always open and honest in their lobbying efforts and that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business. He also states that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated and that there are at least as many lobbyists arguing against their positions as there are for them. Barry argues that they sell a legal product and are a legal company, therefore they have a role to play in communicating their point of view to decision-makers.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Olivier Hoedeman takes people on unusual tours of Brussels - he opens their eyes to the billions of euros that multinationals, unions and campaign groups spend trying to shape - even rewrite - the European laws made there. By Jane DeithFile on 4, Brussels The research and campaign coordinator of Corporate Europe Observatory - which monitors lobbying - pauses outside a smart office block, a few streets away from the European Parliament. He points to the second floor and the offices of British American Tobacco. It has seven full-time lobbyists here and Mr Hoedeman says the tobacco industry as a whole employs around 100 in Brussels, spending more than 5m euros (£4.3m; $6.6m) a year. Those numbers have grown as the industry fights proposed new regulation. The European Commission is beefing up the Tobacco Products Directive, to try to dissuade young people from smoking. So, for example, there would be a ban on menthol cigarettes and some other flavourings and bigger pictorial health warnings on packets. Lobbying battlefield Tobacco firms "directly lobby MEPs, trying to meet with him or her to talk them into tabling amendments, but also [organise] social events, like dinner parties for MEPs' assistants," Mr Hoedeman says. "We have already seen in several of the votes of committees of parliament that the Commission's proposals are being weakened. It shows they're gaining ground and achieving that goal." The lobbying appears to be having an impact. Almost 1,500 amendments to the tobacco directive have been tabled. The EU's health ministers, for example, voted to drop a ban on slim cigarettes, and reduce the size of the graphic health warnings, from the 75% the European Commission wanted, to 65%. But last week the parliament's public health committee voted to keep that ban, as well as a ban on cigarette flavourings, and backed the 75% target. So more hard bargaining lies ahead, and the full parliament will vote on 10 September. The EU has an online database of lobbyists called the Transparency Register. But it does not tell the whole story: the register is voluntary and hundreds of lobbyists simply choose not to reveal themselves. There is no information about whom they have lobbied. Special rules are supposed to apply to the tobacco industry. The EU has signed up to a World Health Organization treaty which says politicians should avoid meeting tobacco companies; if they must, the meeting has to be transparent. But the British MEP piloting the tobacco legislation through parliament, Linda McAvan, says that away from the main lobbying battlefield the tobacco companies have been firing salvoes below the radar. She accuses one of ringing her constituency office, posing as a representative of small retailers to demand an urgent meeting. 'Legal company' Other tobacco lobbyists, she said, have been handing out anonymous amendments to MEPs, in the hope they will be put forward. "If they think it's legitimate, why are doing it like that? Why don't they just operate like every other company that lobbies the European Parliament and just send it out in a normal email? I think they know that if people know they're from the tobacco industry, they'll be suspicious of the arguments they make," said Ms McAvan. Ronan Barry describes himself as a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco and heads their Brussels lobbying operation, which cost nearly 1m euros to run last year. He says his company is always open and honest, and he does not recognise the tactics described by the MEP. He believes tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and says the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. "We sell a legal product and are a legal company and therefore have a role to play in communicating our point of view to people who make decisions that impact upon us. There are certainly at least as many lobbyists arguing against our positions as there are arguing for them, so it's not true to say there are armies of us here lobbying," said Mr Barry. A British Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan, echoed that view. "This idea they put across that it's a sort of David and Goliath - these industrial giants with thousands of well-paid, suited lobbyists and only one or two little NGOs representing the oppressed common man is very, very far from the truth - it's the other way round if anything." On average, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Brussels get 43% of their funding from EU institutions. 'Billions of euros' In the past year the lobbying debate on both sides has been overshadowed by a scandal involving the former commissioner who was supposed to be driving the tobacco directive, John Dalli. At the centre of so-called "Dalligate" is an allegation that a friend of Mr Dalli asked for 60m euros to overturn a ban on snus - a moist chewing tobacco which you put under your lip. Mr Dalli and his friend both strenuously deny the allegation. An investigation by Europe's anti-fraud office Olaf says that although it has circumstantial evidence linking Mr Dalli to the bribe request, that evidence is not conclusive. Speaking from his home in Malta, Mr Dalli claims he is the victim of a conspiracy: "I was considered as a person who was very hard on the tobacco industry and they didn't want that during their campaign. "I'm already hearing about a lot of dilution that is being made to the directive because of the tobacco lobbies that have been very active. "I'm afraid that what's going to go through, if it goes through, is not as effective as one would like and what is the gain? The gain is billions of euros."

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the opinions of Ronan Barry in the article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Ronan Barry, a corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that his company is always open and honest in their lobbying efforts and that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business. He also states that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated and that there are at least as many lobbyists arguing against their positions as there are for them. Barry argues that they sell a legal product and are a legal company, therefore they have a role to play in communicating their point of view to decision-makers.

Ronan Barry, the corporate affairs professional for British American Tobacco, believes that tobacco companies have as much right to meet MEPs as any other business and that the scale of the tobacco lobby is often exaggerated. He also states that his company is always open and honest and does not recognize the tactics described by the MEP.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Quantum computers have long been touted as incredibly powerful machines that will be able to solve hugely complex computational problems much faster than any computer we have available today. But no-one can agree on the best way to make them. Who will win the race? By Mary-Ann RussonTechnology of Business reporter Superfast quantum computers could speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack the most complex cryptographic security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence, computer scientists say. But there's currently no consensus on the best way to make them or how to make them available to the mass market. Physicists, engineers and computer scientists around the world are trying to develop four very different types of quantum computers, based around light particles, trapped ions, superconducting qubits, or nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamonds. Companies like IBM, Google, Rigetti, Intel and Microsoft are currently leading the quantum charge. Each method has its pros and cons, but the overarching challenge is the fragile nature of quantum itself. What is quantum computing? Instead of using ones and noughts called bits, representing on or off, in long sequences as in classical computing a quantum bit - or qubit - uses the near magical properties of sub-atomic particles. Electrons or photons, for example, can be in two states at the same time - a phenomenon called superposition. As a result, a qubit-based computer can do far more calculations much faster than a conventional computer. "If you had a two-qubit computer and you add two qubits, it becomes a four-qubit computer. But you're not doubling the computer power, you're increasing it exponentially," explains Martin Giles, San Francisco bureau chief of the MIT Technology Review. Computer scientists sometimes describe this quantum computing effect as like being able to go down each path of a very complex maze at the same time. Qubits can also influence each other even when they're not physically connected, a process called "entanglement". In computing terms, this gives them the ability to make logical leaps conventional computers never could. The search for stability But qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference or "noise" from other sources of energy, leading to errors in calculations. So the race is one to find a way to stabilise them for mass-production. Computing giant IBM firmly believes that "transmon superconducting qubits" hold the most promise for quantum computing, and they have three prototype quantum processors that the public can access in the cloud. "So far, over 94,000 people have accessed IBM quantum computers in the cloud. They've run over five million experiments and written 110 papers," says Dr Robert Sutor, vice president for quantum computing strategy and ecosystem at IBM Research. "People are learning and experimenting... we hope in three to five years to be able to point at one specific example, and say that quantum significantly improves on anything classical computers can do." But IBM's method required the quantum computer to be stored within a large fridge, where the qubits are stored at temperatures close to absolute zero to ensure that they remain in their useful states. This means it would be extremely hard to miniaturise, and thus very expensive. "It seems likely that superconducting qubits will be among the first technologies to enable useful quantum computation," says Joseph Fitzsimons, a principal investigator at the National University of Singapore's Centre of Quantum Technologies. "However, my impression is that they are analogous to vacuum tubes in early computers, rather than transistors which came along later. "We may yet see another technology emerge which becomes the ultimate winner." Microsoft and academics at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen are working on what they believe will be much more stable qubits based on so-called Majorana particles. While other teams are working on trapping qubits in silicon - the material traditional computer chips have been made from. And computer scientists at Oxford University are looking at ways to link smaller qubit computers rather than creating bigger computers with lots of qubits. There are many ways to skin Schrodinger's Cat it seems. Classical potential? While we wait for quantum computers, what's the future for conventional, or classical, computing? In July, Ewin Tang, an 18-year-old graduate in computer science and mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin, made waves in the international computing world by developing a classical computer algorithm that can solve a problem almost as fast as a quantum computer. The problem involved developing a recommendation engine that suggests products to users based on data about their preferences. And the EU recently announced it is working on the next generation of computers - exascale - which would enable a billion billion calculations per second. "Exascale means 10 to the power of 18 operations per second," explains says Prof Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at UT Austin who mentored Mr Tang. "10 to the power of 18 is big, but quantum systems, which will be capable of 10 to the power of 1,000 operations per second, is much, much bigger." And the problem for classical computing is that we are reaching the limits of how many transistors we can fit onto a chip - Apple's A11 squeezes in an astonishing 4.3 billion, for example. Moore's Law - that every two years, microprocessors will get twice as fast, use half as much energy, and take up half as much space - is finally breaking down. Quantum leap Even if a stable, mass-produced quantum computer always remains elusive, the research is already yielding interesting results. "If we hadn't invested in quantum computing, the quantum algorithm that inspired Mr Tang wouldn't have existed," says Prof Robert Young, a Royal Society research fellow and director of the University of Lancaster's Quantum Technology Centre. More Technology of Business Already, he says that quantum research has yielded a new way to cool devices to low temperatures; light-based chip enhancements that have improved the fibre optic broadband experience; and the invention of lab-on-a-chip technologies to speed up the diagnosis of illnesses. "The real benefit of going to the Moon wasn't going to the Moon, it was the peripheral technologies that were developed on the way," says Prof Young - GPS satellite navigation and ball point pens that write upside down, to name but two.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the potential advantages of quantum computers compared to conventional computers.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Quantum computers have the potential to solve complex computational problems much faster than conventional computers, and could be used to speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack complex security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence. They are able to do far more calculations much faster than conventional computers due to the physical characteristics of qubits.

# Output (a):
Quantum computers have the potential to solve complex computational problems much faster than conventional computers, which could speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack complex cryptographic security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence. This is because quantum computers use qubits, which can be in two states at the same time, allowing them to do far more calculations much faster than a conventional computer. Additionally, qubits can influence each other even when they're not physically connected, giving them the ability to make logical leaps that conventional computers cannot. However, the challenge is the fragile nature of quantum itself, as qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference or "noise" from other sources of energy, leading to errors in calculations.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Quantum computers have long been touted as incredibly powerful machines that will be able to solve hugely complex computational problems much faster than any computer we have available today. But no-one can agree on the best way to make them. Who will win the race? By Mary-Ann RussonTechnology of Business reporter Superfast quantum computers could speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack the most complex cryptographic security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence, computer scientists say. But there's currently no consensus on the best way to make them or how to make them available to the mass market. Physicists, engineers and computer scientists around the world are trying to develop four very different types of quantum computers, based around light particles, trapped ions, superconducting qubits, or nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamonds. Companies like IBM, Google, Rigetti, Intel and Microsoft are currently leading the quantum charge. Each method has its pros and cons, but the overarching challenge is the fragile nature of quantum itself. What is quantum computing? Instead of using ones and noughts called bits, representing on or off, in long sequences as in classical computing a quantum bit - or qubit - uses the near magical properties of sub-atomic particles. Electrons or photons, for example, can be in two states at the same time - a phenomenon called superposition. As a result, a qubit-based computer can do far more calculations much faster than a conventional computer. "If you had a two-qubit computer and you add two qubits, it becomes a four-qubit computer. But you're not doubling the computer power, you're increasing it exponentially," explains Martin Giles, San Francisco bureau chief of the MIT Technology Review. Computer scientists sometimes describe this quantum computing effect as like being able to go down each path of a very complex maze at the same time. Qubits can also influence each other even when they're not physically connected, a process called "entanglement". In computing terms, this gives them the ability to make logical leaps conventional computers never could. The search for stability But qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference or "noise" from other sources of energy, leading to errors in calculations. So the race is one to find a way to stabilise them for mass-production. Computing giant IBM firmly believes that "transmon superconducting qubits" hold the most promise for quantum computing, and they have three prototype quantum processors that the public can access in the cloud. "So far, over 94,000 people have accessed IBM quantum computers in the cloud. They've run over five million experiments and written 110 papers," says Dr Robert Sutor, vice president for quantum computing strategy and ecosystem at IBM Research. "People are learning and experimenting... we hope in three to five years to be able to point at one specific example, and say that quantum significantly improves on anything classical computers can do." But IBM's method required the quantum computer to be stored within a large fridge, where the qubits are stored at temperatures close to absolute zero to ensure that they remain in their useful states. This means it would be extremely hard to miniaturise, and thus very expensive. "It seems likely that superconducting qubits will be among the first technologies to enable useful quantum computation," says Joseph Fitzsimons, a principal investigator at the National University of Singapore's Centre of Quantum Technologies. "However, my impression is that they are analogous to vacuum tubes in early computers, rather than transistors which came along later. "We may yet see another technology emerge which becomes the ultimate winner." Microsoft and academics at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen are working on what they believe will be much more stable qubits based on so-called Majorana particles. While other teams are working on trapping qubits in silicon - the material traditional computer chips have been made from. And computer scientists at Oxford University are looking at ways to link smaller qubit computers rather than creating bigger computers with lots of qubits. There are many ways to skin Schrodinger's Cat it seems. Classical potential? While we wait for quantum computers, what's the future for conventional, or classical, computing? In July, Ewin Tang, an 18-year-old graduate in computer science and mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin, made waves in the international computing world by developing a classical computer algorithm that can solve a problem almost as fast as a quantum computer. The problem involved developing a recommendation engine that suggests products to users based on data about their preferences. And the EU recently announced it is working on the next generation of computers - exascale - which would enable a billion billion calculations per second. "Exascale means 10 to the power of 18 operations per second," explains says Prof Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at UT Austin who mentored Mr Tang. "10 to the power of 18 is big, but quantum systems, which will be capable of 10 to the power of 1,000 operations per second, is much, much bigger." And the problem for classical computing is that we are reaching the limits of how many transistors we can fit onto a chip - Apple's A11 squeezes in an astonishing 4.3 billion, for example. Moore's Law - that every two years, microprocessors will get twice as fast, use half as much energy, and take up half as much space - is finally breaking down. Quantum leap Even if a stable, mass-produced quantum computer always remains elusive, the research is already yielding interesting results. "If we hadn't invested in quantum computing, the quantum algorithm that inspired Mr Tang wouldn't have existed," says Prof Robert Young, a Royal Society research fellow and director of the University of Lancaster's Quantum Technology Centre. More Technology of Business Already, he says that quantum research has yielded a new way to cool devices to low temperatures; light-based chip enhancements that have improved the fibre optic broadband experience; and the invention of lab-on-a-chip technologies to speed up the diagnosis of illnesses. "The real benefit of going to the Moon wasn't going to the Moon, it was the peripheral technologies that were developed on the way," says Prof Young - GPS satellite navigation and ball point pens that write upside down, to name but two.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the potential advantages of quantum computers compared to conventional computers.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Quantum computers have the potential to solve complex computational problems much faster than conventional computers, which could speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack complex cryptographic security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence. This is because quantum computers use qubits, which can be in two states at the same time, allowing them to do far more calculations much faster than a conventional computer. Additionally, qubits can influence each other even when they're not physically connected, giving them the ability to make logical leaps that conventional computers cannot. However, the challenge is the fragile nature of quantum itself, as qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference or "noise" from other sources of energy, leading to errors in calculations.

Quantum computers have the potential to solve complex computational problems much faster than conventional computers, and could be used to speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack complex security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence. They are able to do far more calculations much faster than conventional computers due to the physical characteristics of qubits.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Quantum computers have long been touted as incredibly powerful machines that will be able to solve hugely complex computational problems much faster than any computer we have available today. But no-one can agree on the best way to make them. Who will win the race? By Mary-Ann RussonTechnology of Business reporter Superfast quantum computers could speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack the most complex cryptographic security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence, computer scientists say. But there's currently no consensus on the best way to make them or how to make them available to the mass market. Physicists, engineers and computer scientists around the world are trying to develop four very different types of quantum computers, based around light particles, trapped ions, superconducting qubits, or nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamonds. Companies like IBM, Google, Rigetti, Intel and Microsoft are currently leading the quantum charge. Each method has its pros and cons, but the overarching challenge is the fragile nature of quantum itself. What is quantum computing? Instead of using ones and noughts called bits, representing on or off, in long sequences as in classical computing a quantum bit - or qubit - uses the near magical properties of sub-atomic particles. Electrons or photons, for example, can be in two states at the same time - a phenomenon called superposition. As a result, a qubit-based computer can do far more calculations much faster than a conventional computer. "If you had a two-qubit computer and you add two qubits, it becomes a four-qubit computer. But you're not doubling the computer power, you're increasing it exponentially," explains Martin Giles, San Francisco bureau chief of the MIT Technology Review. Computer scientists sometimes describe this quantum computing effect as like being able to go down each path of a very complex maze at the same time. Qubits can also influence each other even when they're not physically connected, a process called "entanglement". In computing terms, this gives them the ability to make logical leaps conventional computers never could. The search for stability But qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference or "noise" from other sources of energy, leading to errors in calculations. So the race is one to find a way to stabilise them for mass-production. Computing giant IBM firmly believes that "transmon superconducting qubits" hold the most promise for quantum computing, and they have three prototype quantum processors that the public can access in the cloud. "So far, over 94,000 people have accessed IBM quantum computers in the cloud. They've run over five million experiments and written 110 papers," says Dr Robert Sutor, vice president for quantum computing strategy and ecosystem at IBM Research. "People are learning and experimenting... we hope in three to five years to be able to point at one specific example, and say that quantum significantly improves on anything classical computers can do." But IBM's method required the quantum computer to be stored within a large fridge, where the qubits are stored at temperatures close to absolute zero to ensure that they remain in their useful states. This means it would be extremely hard to miniaturise, and thus very expensive. "It seems likely that superconducting qubits will be among the first technologies to enable useful quantum computation," says Joseph Fitzsimons, a principal investigator at the National University of Singapore's Centre of Quantum Technologies. "However, my impression is that they are analogous to vacuum tubes in early computers, rather than transistors which came along later. "We may yet see another technology emerge which becomes the ultimate winner." Microsoft and academics at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen are working on what they believe will be much more stable qubits based on so-called Majorana particles. While other teams are working on trapping qubits in silicon - the material traditional computer chips have been made from. And computer scientists at Oxford University are looking at ways to link smaller qubit computers rather than creating bigger computers with lots of qubits. There are many ways to skin Schrodinger's Cat it seems. Classical potential? While we wait for quantum computers, what's the future for conventional, or classical, computing? In July, Ewin Tang, an 18-year-old graduate in computer science and mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin, made waves in the international computing world by developing a classical computer algorithm that can solve a problem almost as fast as a quantum computer. The problem involved developing a recommendation engine that suggests products to users based on data about their preferences. And the EU recently announced it is working on the next generation of computers - exascale - which would enable a billion billion calculations per second. "Exascale means 10 to the power of 18 operations per second," explains says Prof Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at UT Austin who mentored Mr Tang. "10 to the power of 18 is big, but quantum systems, which will be capable of 10 to the power of 1,000 operations per second, is much, much bigger." And the problem for classical computing is that we are reaching the limits of how many transistors we can fit onto a chip - Apple's A11 squeezes in an astonishing 4.3 billion, for example. Moore's Law - that every two years, microprocessors will get twice as fast, use half as much energy, and take up half as much space - is finally breaking down. Quantum leap Even if a stable, mass-produced quantum computer always remains elusive, the research is already yielding interesting results. "If we hadn't invested in quantum computing, the quantum algorithm that inspired Mr Tang wouldn't have existed," says Prof Robert Young, a Royal Society research fellow and director of the University of Lancaster's Quantum Technology Centre. More Technology of Business Already, he says that quantum research has yielded a new way to cool devices to low temperatures; light-based chip enhancements that have improved the fibre optic broadband experience; and the invention of lab-on-a-chip technologies to speed up the diagnosis of illnesses. "The real benefit of going to the Moon wasn't going to the Moon, it was the peripheral technologies that were developed on the way," says Prof Young - GPS satellite navigation and ball point pens that write upside down, to name but two.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the potential advantages of quantum computers compared to conventional computers.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (b):
Quantum computers have the potential to solve complex computational problems much faster than conventional computers, and could be used to speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack complex security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence. They are able to do far more calculations much faster than conventional computers due to the physical characteristics of qubits.

# Output (a):
Quantum computers have the potential to significantly outperform conventional computers due to their ability to perform far more calculations much faster. Instead of using bits (ones and zeros) like classical computing, quantum computers use qubits, which can be in two states at the same time due to the phenomenon called superposition. This allows quantum computers to exponentially increase their computing power and make logical leaps that conventional computers cannot. However, qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference, which is a challenge that researchers are working to overcome.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Quantum computers have long been touted as incredibly powerful machines that will be able to solve hugely complex computational problems much faster than any computer we have available today. But no-one can agree on the best way to make them. Who will win the race? By Mary-Ann RussonTechnology of Business reporter Superfast quantum computers could speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack the most complex cryptographic security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence, computer scientists say. But there's currently no consensus on the best way to make them or how to make them available to the mass market. Physicists, engineers and computer scientists around the world are trying to develop four very different types of quantum computers, based around light particles, trapped ions, superconducting qubits, or nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamonds. Companies like IBM, Google, Rigetti, Intel and Microsoft are currently leading the quantum charge. Each method has its pros and cons, but the overarching challenge is the fragile nature of quantum itself. What is quantum computing? Instead of using ones and noughts called bits, representing on or off, in long sequences as in classical computing a quantum bit - or qubit - uses the near magical properties of sub-atomic particles. Electrons or photons, for example, can be in two states at the same time - a phenomenon called superposition. As a result, a qubit-based computer can do far more calculations much faster than a conventional computer. "If you had a two-qubit computer and you add two qubits, it becomes a four-qubit computer. But you're not doubling the computer power, you're increasing it exponentially," explains Martin Giles, San Francisco bureau chief of the MIT Technology Review. Computer scientists sometimes describe this quantum computing effect as like being able to go down each path of a very complex maze at the same time. Qubits can also influence each other even when they're not physically connected, a process called "entanglement". In computing terms, this gives them the ability to make logical leaps conventional computers never could. The search for stability But qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference or "noise" from other sources of energy, leading to errors in calculations. So the race is one to find a way to stabilise them for mass-production. Computing giant IBM firmly believes that "transmon superconducting qubits" hold the most promise for quantum computing, and they have three prototype quantum processors that the public can access in the cloud. "So far, over 94,000 people have accessed IBM quantum computers in the cloud. They've run over five million experiments and written 110 papers," says Dr Robert Sutor, vice president for quantum computing strategy and ecosystem at IBM Research. "People are learning and experimenting... we hope in three to five years to be able to point at one specific example, and say that quantum significantly improves on anything classical computers can do." But IBM's method required the quantum computer to be stored within a large fridge, where the qubits are stored at temperatures close to absolute zero to ensure that they remain in their useful states. This means it would be extremely hard to miniaturise, and thus very expensive. "It seems likely that superconducting qubits will be among the first technologies to enable useful quantum computation," says Joseph Fitzsimons, a principal investigator at the National University of Singapore's Centre of Quantum Technologies. "However, my impression is that they are analogous to vacuum tubes in early computers, rather than transistors which came along later. "We may yet see another technology emerge which becomes the ultimate winner." Microsoft and academics at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen are working on what they believe will be much more stable qubits based on so-called Majorana particles. While other teams are working on trapping qubits in silicon - the material traditional computer chips have been made from. And computer scientists at Oxford University are looking at ways to link smaller qubit computers rather than creating bigger computers with lots of qubits. There are many ways to skin Schrodinger's Cat it seems. Classical potential? While we wait for quantum computers, what's the future for conventional, or classical, computing? In July, Ewin Tang, an 18-year-old graduate in computer science and mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin, made waves in the international computing world by developing a classical computer algorithm that can solve a problem almost as fast as a quantum computer. The problem involved developing a recommendation engine that suggests products to users based on data about their preferences. And the EU recently announced it is working on the next generation of computers - exascale - which would enable a billion billion calculations per second. "Exascale means 10 to the power of 18 operations per second," explains says Prof Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at UT Austin who mentored Mr Tang. "10 to the power of 18 is big, but quantum systems, which will be capable of 10 to the power of 1,000 operations per second, is much, much bigger." And the problem for classical computing is that we are reaching the limits of how many transistors we can fit onto a chip - Apple's A11 squeezes in an astonishing 4.3 billion, for example. Moore's Law - that every two years, microprocessors will get twice as fast, use half as much energy, and take up half as much space - is finally breaking down. Quantum leap Even if a stable, mass-produced quantum computer always remains elusive, the research is already yielding interesting results. "If we hadn't invested in quantum computing, the quantum algorithm that inspired Mr Tang wouldn't have existed," says Prof Robert Young, a Royal Society research fellow and director of the University of Lancaster's Quantum Technology Centre. More Technology of Business Already, he says that quantum research has yielded a new way to cool devices to low temperatures; light-based chip enhancements that have improved the fibre optic broadband experience; and the invention of lab-on-a-chip technologies to speed up the diagnosis of illnesses. "The real benefit of going to the Moon wasn't going to the Moon, it was the peripheral technologies that were developed on the way," says Prof Young - GPS satellite navigation and ball point pens that write upside down, to name but two.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the potential advantages of quantum computers compared to conventional computers.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

Quantum computers have the potential to significantly outperform conventional computers due to their ability to perform far more calculations much faster. Instead of using bits (ones and zeros) like classical computing, quantum computers use qubits, which can be in two states at the same time due to the phenomenon called superposition. This allows quantum computers to exponentially increase their computing power and make logical leaps that conventional computers cannot. However, qubits are highly unstable and prone to interference, which is a challenge that researchers are working to overcome.

Quantum computers have the potential to solve complex computational problems much faster than conventional computers, and could be used to speed up the discovery of new medicines, crack complex security systems, design new materials, model climate change, and supercharge artificial intelligence. They are able to do far more calculations much faster than conventional computers due to the physical characteristics of qubits.