179 questions
No questions match those filters.
A team wants to hit a compliance deadline by leaving th...
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 plansThe key distinction is between during-generation attribution and post-hoc citation, and they answer genuinely different questions. During-generation systems (WebGPT, GopherCite-style) condition the act of writing a sentence on the retrieved passage placed next to it — text and citation share a common cause, so the citation is evidence about how the sentence was produced. A post-hoc pipeline generates freely from parametric knowledge, finalizes the text, and only then runs a separate search for a passage that looks textually similar to the already-fixed sentence. That search answers “what document in the corpus most resembles this text,” which is solvable regardless of whether the sentence is true — there is no “producing” left to observe by the time the search runs, so the citation carries no information about reliance.
Put a number on it with Bayes’ rule: if the rate at which sentences carry a citation is roughly the same whether the sentence is correct or incorrect — which FActScore-style atomic-fact audits have found, both sitting just over 30% — the likelihood ratio P(citation | correct) / P(citation | incorrect) is close to 1, meaning observing a citation barely moves your posterior belief in correctness at all. A near-uninformative citation is functionally decoration, not evidence, and representing it to legal or to end users as a grounding guarantee misstates what was actually verified. If during-generation attribution is too slow to ship, the honest compromise is a visible confidence caveat, not a citation mark implying a check that never happened.