For a retrieval-augmented (RAG) feature, how would you measure whether the model's answers actually stay grounded in the retrieved documents rather than making things up?

technical-conceptual · Junior level · data-ml

What the interviewer is really asking

Assess whether the candidate knows the specific concept of faithfulness/groundedness in RAG evaluation — checking that each claim in the answer is supported by the retrieved context — and can name a practical way to measure it rather than only judging fluency.

What to say

What to avoid

Example answers

Strong: I'd measure faithfulness: does every claim in the answer trace back to the retrieved context, separate from whether it sounds good. A practical way is to decompose the answer into individual claims and check each against the context, often using an LLM judge that's given the context so it can verify support, or by requiring citations and checking them. I'd keep that distinct from retrieval quality — if we fetched the wrong doc that's a retrieval problem — and run it over an eval set built from real queries.

Weak: I'd look at whether the answers are relevant and well written and maybe have a couple of people rate them. If they read well and are on topic, the RAG system is working.

Want questions matched to your role? Paste a job title, job description, or CV and get a personalized set, or go Pro to unlock the full bank.