**Evaluation.** Assessing how well LLMs follow instructions is complex, arising from the fact that an instruction has various valid responses, and the challenge of replicating human evaluation. Recent advances in automatic evaluation on instruction following Dubois et al. (2023); Zheng et al. (2023) demonstrate that LLM-based evaluators are scalable, explainable, and consistent with human evaluations. Therefore, we adopt widely-used Vicuna pairwise evaluator Chiang et al. (2023) based on ChatGPT to compare the response quality from two LLMs for its accessibility in price and efficiency. The evaluation prompt template is in Figure 12, Appendix A.9. We include GPT-4 based evaluation results in Appendix A.6 to demonstrate the consistency of LLM-based evaluators. To mitigate position bias that the LLM evaluator may have, we conduct every evaluation twice by exchanging response orders. A response is considered better only if it wins twice. Following Chen et al. (2023), we set the temperature to 0.0 to reduce evaluation randomness, and left other parameters as default.