← Master Index
Vol. 21 Module 21.1 Lecture

Research Assistants

Applied Product Categories

How This Lesson Fits the Module & Volume

Coding assistants scored suggestions with unit tests. Research assistants score suggestions with sources. The same Vol. 14 RAG machinery that powered AI search and Document AI now has a stricter product promise: every material claim is attributable, and unsupported claims fail the build.

Vol. 11.4 hallucination explained why fluent falsehoods happen. Vol. 19 hallucination tests gave you groundedness, faithfulness, citation checks, and contradiction suites. This lecture turns those tests into a research product: literature/help-center/knowledge-base copilots with HITL authors, not oracles. Next, the volume enters regulated verticals—healthcare, finance, legal—where a fake citation is not just embarrassing.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, students should be able to:

  • Define a research assistant as a citation-first RAG product, not a free-form chatbot.
  • Separate retrieval miss from generation hallucination (Vol. 14 + Vol. 19).
  • Require claim-level attribution and fail dangling or invented citations.
  • Wire hallucination-test gates (groundedness, contradiction, abstention) into CI.
  • Choose corpus ACLs, recency, and version pins so “the paper said” is checkable.
  • Know when HITL authors must still read the source (especially before publish).
Definition

A research assistant is an AI product that helps a human gather, compare, and draft from a declared corpus (papers, tickets, wikis, filings) while exposing citations back to retrieved chunks or documents. Attribution means a cited span actually contains the claim. RAG faithfulness (Vol. 19) is groundedness against those chunks. The product may abstain when retrieval is weak. It does not claim world-truth if the corpus is wrong, stale, or incomplete—and it is not a substitute for a domain expert’s reading.

Product Shapes

ShapeCorpusMust shipFailure mode
Literature copilotPapers / preprints you licenseDOI/URL + quote span + yearInvented citations, wrong paper
Internal knowledge Q&AWiki + tickets + runbooksDoc ID + ACL + recency stampCross-tenant leak (Vol. 20 privacy)
Competitive / market briefApproved public sourcesSource list + “as of” dateStale facts stated as current
Evidence synthesizerMixed structured + textClaim table + support/contradictCherry-picking; omitted dissent

Sibling contrast: AI search often optimizes ranking and snippets. A research assistant additionally writes and therefore must run Vol. 19 hallucination tests on the draft, not only on the hit list. Document AI extracts fields; research assistants argue across documents.

Citation, RAG, and Blame Splitting

Retrieval miss

  • Gold chunk never in top-\(k\)
  • Fix index, chunking, query (Vol. 14)
  • Do not fine-tune the generator first

Generation miss

  • Chunk present; draft invents numbers
  • Fix prompts, citation forcing, decode
  • Vol. 13 guardrails: abstain

Attribution miss

  • Citation ID not in retrieved set
  • Quote does not support the claim
  • Fail the eval even if prose is fluent

Citation-first design buys

  • Auditable drafts for humans
  • Regression gates on every index change
  • Clearer privacy ACLs (cite only what the user may see)

Chat-without-sources costs

  • Fluent fake papers and DOIs
  • Silent corpus errors treated as truth
  • No way to split retrieval vs generation blame

Hallucination Tests as Product Gates (Vol. 19)

Reuse the Vol. 19 taxonomy: groundedness, RAG faithfulness, attribution, context-contradiction, self-contradiction, and closed factuality against a gold table. Automatic NLI / LLM-as-judge is a heuristic; human evaluation still samples borderline claims. Faithfulness to a wrong knowledge base is still a wrong product.

# Citation + RAG faithfulness stub. Pair with Vol. 19 hallucination tests. # Educational product gate — not a claim that the corpus is world-true. import re def extract_bracket_cites(answer: str): return re.findall(r"\[(\d+)\]", answer) def chunk_supports(chunk: str, claim: str, min_hits: int = 2) -> bool: words = {w.lower() for w in re.findall(r"[A-Za-z0-9]+", claim) if len(w) > 3} if not words: return False blob = chunk.lower() return sum(1 for w in words if w in blob) >= min_hits def score_research_item(answer: str, chunks_by_id: dict, gold_must_retrieve=None): cites = extract_bracket_cites(answer) dangling = [c for c in cites if c not in chunks_by_id] claims = [p for p in re.split(r"(?<=[.!?])\s+", answer.strip()) if p] grounded = [] for claim in claims: ids = extract_bracket_cites(claim) or list(chunks_by_id) ok = any(chunk_supports(chunks_by_id.get(i, ""), claim) for i in ids) grounded.append(ok) retrieval_hit = None if gold_must_retrieve is not None: blob = " ".join(chunks_by_id.values()).lower() retrieval_hit = gold_must_retrieve.lower() in blob return { "n_claims": len(claims), "groundedness": sum(grounded) / max(1, len(claims)), "dangling_citations": dangling, "retrieval_hit": retrieval_hit, "abstained": any(s in answer.lower() for s in ("i don't know", "insufficient sources")), } # CI rule: fail if dangling_citations or (retrieval_hit and groundedness < threshold). # If retrieval_hit is False, fix Vol. 14 retrieval before blaming the generator.

Policy companions: corpus ACLs (Vol. 20 privacy), recency metadata, and a human “read before publish” gate (Vol. 15 HITL). Invented legal/medical citations become the next three lectures’ incident reports.

Related Lectures

LectureRole
Coding assistantsPrevious: tests as evidence vs citations as evidence
AI search / Document AIRetrieval UX siblings
RAG / retrievalEvidence channel
Hallucination testsGroundedness / faithfulness / contradiction
Hallucination (11.4)Why fluent falsehoods happen
Guardrails / HITLAbstain + author review
Healthcare AINext: regulated citation + HITL
Common Misconception

“We added RAG, so we do not need hallucination tests.” RAG changes the evidence; models still over-generate. Second: a citation number is proof—unless the chunk actually supports the claim (Vol. 19 attribution). Third: blaming the generator when the gold chunk was never retrieved. Fourth: keyword overlap \(\equiv\) support (negations still match tokens). Fifth: faithful summary of a wrong or stale corpus equals a correct brief. Sixth: the research assistant can replace reading the source before you publish or advise.

Knowledge Check

  1. Short Answer: What extra promise does a research assistant add beyond AI search? Answer: Citation-first drafting / claim-level attribution against a declared corpus.
  2. True/False: RAG faithfulness is groundedness against retrieved chunks. Answer: True.
  3. Multiple Choice: If the gold chunk was never retrieved, blame first: (a) retrieval, (b) BLEU, (c) TTFT. Answer: (a).
  4. Short Answer: What is a dangling citation? Answer: A cited ID that is not in the retrieved/allowed set (or cannot be resolved).
  5. True/False: Adding RAG removes the need for Vol. 19 hallucination tests. Answer: False—models still invent past chunks.
  6. Multiple Choice: Abstention when sources are weak is: (a) often a pass, (b) always a product failure, (c) a CUDA error. Answer: (a).
  7. Short Answer: Name two Vol. 19 hallucination-test families useful here. Answer: Any two of: groundedness, RAG faithfulness, attribution, contradiction, closed factuality.
  8. True/False: Faithful to a wrong knowledge base means the brief is correct. Answer: False—corpus error \(\neq\) world-truth.
  9. Multiple Choice: Internal wiki Q&A without ACLs risks: (a) privacy/tenant leakage, (b) higher BLEU, (c) automatic copyright clearance. Answer: (a).
  10. Short Answer: Why keep HITL authors in the loop before publish? Answer: Automatic checkers miss nuance; humans must still read sources for high-stakes drafts.

Key Takeaways

  • Research assistants are citation-first RAG products with abstain + HITL, not oracles.
  • Split retrieval miss vs generation vs attribution miss (Vol. 14 + Vol. 19).
  • Dangling or invented citations fail the build even if the prose is fluent.
  • Faithfulness \(\neq\) truth if the corpus is wrong, stale, or unauthorized.
  • Next: Healthcare AI — same citation discipline under regulation.
Trainer’s Guide

Lab: Give a 12-item set: 4 retrieval misses, 4 faithful cited answers, 4 unfaithful (invented figure or dangling [99]). Students run the sketch scorer and label blame. No live scraping of paywalled sites; use a toy corpus they own.

Whiteboard: Query \(\to\) retrieve \(\to\) draft \(\to\) claim spans \(\to\) {support, contradict, neither, dangling}. Circle “neither” as the human-eval bucket. Tease healthcare: a fake drug citation is an incident, not a BLEU dip.

Recap: Research assistants productize Vol. 14 RAG and Vol. 19 hallucination tests—citations, faithfulness, and abstention with a human still reading the source. Continue to Healthcare AI.