179 questions
No questions match those filters.
What does it formally mean for a generated sentence to...
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 plansGoogle’s AIS (Attributable to Identified Sources) framework splits attribution into two sequential yes/no tests specifically so two competent raters — or two automated judges — can’t silently answer different questions and disagree without anyone noticing why. Step one is interpretability: before checking anything against a source, resolve the sentence’s explicature — the fully self-contained proposition a reader would construct by filling in pronouns and ellipses from the immediate conversation context alone, never from the source and never from outside world knowledge. A sentence like “it shipped in September” isn’t penalized for containing “it” if the prior turn makes the referent obvious to any reader; it fails this step only if genuinely ambiguous even with context.
Step two, reached only once step one passes, is the actual attribution test: is “according to [source], [explicature]” a reasonable, checkable claim a reader would agree the source supports, with no outside knowledge needed to bridge a gap? Collapsing these into one entailment score is the common shortcut, and it’s exactly what breaks measurement consistency: a grader’s or an NLI model’s own world knowledge can silently repair an ambiguous claim before anyone notices it was ambiguous, so a “supported” verdict ends up meaning different things across examples — sometimes “clear and grounded,” sometimes just “plausible enough that nothing flagged it.” The ordering — interpretability gates attribution, not the reverse — is the whole contribution, and it’s the detail worth citing when someone asks how you’d build a rigorous citation-quality eval rather than an ad hoc one.