179 questions
No questions match those filters.
How do you actually prove a word or sentence embedding...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plans“King - man + woman = queen” only tests whether the embedding space has learned correct dictionary-level semantic structure. It says nothing about safety, because a model can get that arithmetic perfectly right while also having quietly learned that “doctor - man + woman” lands much closer to “nurse” than to “doctor,” or that “programmer” skews male and “homemaker” skews female — the exact kind of stereotypical association a corpus like Common Crawl bakes in over a century of text. Checking one hand-picked analogy proves the model understands definitions; it doesn’t audit allocational harm.
The rigorous version is a statistical test in the spirit of WEAT (Word Embedding Association Test): define two sets of target concepts you want to be neutral (say, {math, physics, logic} vs. {art, dance, poetry}) and two attribute sets representing the protected dimension (say, male vs. female pronouns), then measure whether the cosine similarity gap between targets and attributes is statistically distinguishable from a null hypothesis of no association. A low p-value or a large effect size means the space is systematically projecting a protected attribute onto concepts that should be neutral to it. Set a concrete effect-size threshold as a ship/no-ship gate, run it across every protected-category pair that matters for your deployment, and treat it as a recurring regression check — retraining or fine-tuning can reintroduce bias that a one-time audit already cleared.