Despite F1 scores are the most commonly used metrics for evaluating the quality of QA models, there are often multiple ways to answer questions, which makes the automatic metrics less than perfect. Therefore, we use human evaluations to further compare our ChatQA-70B with GPT-4. In this human evaluation, we ask annotators to verify the facts in ChatQA-70B and GPT-4's outputs and determine which model provides a more accurate response to the question6. The human evaluation results over the 10 datasets are shown in Table 3. We first find that our ChatQA-70B and GPT-4 are tie most of the time (69.09%), and GPT-4 achieves slightly higher win rate (\(\sim\)3.3%) than ours. This further confirms our model has powerful capability to produce correct answers. Second, we find that our model achieves slightly better win rate than GPT-4 in ConvFinQA, which indicates the strong arithmetic calculation ability of our model. Third, we find that GPT-4 achieves significantly better win rate in SQA task, which suggests that there is still a gap between our model and GPT-4 on tabular reasoning task.