Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate Questions and Answers

To mitigate the issue of the LLM including explanations of how summaries are generated in its output, the best approach is to adjust the training or prompt structure. Here’s why Option D is effective:

Few-shot Learning: By providing specific examples of how the desired output should look (i.e., just the summary without explanation), the model learns the preferred format. This few-shot learning approach helps the model understand not only what content to generate but also how to format its responses.

Prompt Engineering: Adjusting the user prompt to specify the desired output format clearly can guide the LLM to produce summaries without additional explanatory text. Effective prompt design is crucial in controlling the behavior of generative models.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A: While technically feasible, splitting the output by newline and truncating could lead to loss of important content or create awkward breaks in the summary.

B: Tuning chunk sizes or changing embedding models does not directly address the issue of the model's tendency to generate explanations along with summaries.

C: Revisiting document ingestion logic ensures accurate source data but does not influence how the model formats its output.

By using few-shot examples and refining the prompt, the engineer directly influences the output format, making this approach the most targeted and effective solution.

In a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application built to answer questions about internal documents, especially when the dataset contains irrelevant content, it's crucial to guide the system to focus on the right information. The best way to achieve this is byincluding a clear instruction in the system prompt(option C).

System Prompt as Guidance:The system prompt is an effective way to instruct the LLM to limit its focus to SnoPen AI-related content. By clearly specifying that the model should avoid answering questions unrelated to SnoPen AI, you add an additional layer of control that helps the model stay on-topic, even if irrelevant content is present in the dataset.

Why This Approach Works:The prompt acts as a guiding principle for the model, narrowing its focus to specific domains. This prevents the model from generating answers based on irrelevant content, such as advertisements or news unrelated to SnoPen AI.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A (Keep All Articles): Retaining all content, including irrelevant materials, without any filtering makes the system prone to generating answers based on unwanted data.

B (Include in the System Prompt about SnoPen AI): This option doesn’t address irrelevant content directly, and without filtering, the model might still retrieve and use irrelevant data.

D (Consolidating Documents into a Single Chunk): Grouping documents into a single chunk makes the retrieval process less efficient and won’t help filter out irrelevant content effectively.

Therefore, instructing the system in the prompt not to answer questions unrelated to SnoPen AI (option C) is the best approach to ensure the system filters out irrelevant information.

When deploying an LLM application for customer service inquiries, the primary focus is on measuring the operational efficiency and quality of the responses. Here's whyAis the correct metric:

Number of customer inquiries processed per unit of time: This metric tracks the throughput of the customer service system, reflecting how many customer inquiries the LLM application can handle in a given time period (e.g., per minute or hour). High throughput is crucial in customer service applications where quick response times are essential to user satisfaction and business efficiency.

Real-time performance monitoring: Monitoring the number of queries processed is an important part of ensuring that the model is performing well under load, especially during peak traffic times. It also helps ensure the system scales properly to meet demand.

Why other options are not ideal:

B. Energy usage per query: While energy efficiency is a consideration, it is not the primary concern for a customer-facing application where user experience (i.e., fast and accurate responses) is critical.

C. Final perplexity scores for the training of the model: Perplexity is a metric for model training, but it doesn't reflect the real-time operational performance of an LLM in production.

D. HuggingFace Leaderboard values for the base LLM: The HuggingFace Leaderboard is more relevant during model selection and benchmarking. However, it is not a direct measure of the model's performance in a specific customer service application in production.

Focusing on throughput (inquiries processed per unit time) ensures that the LLM application is meeting business needs for fast and efficient customer service responses.

Problem Context: The Generative AI Engineer needs a prompt that will enable an LLM trained on customer call transcripts to classify and respond correctly regarding product availability. The desired response should clearly indicate whether a product is "In Stock" or "Out of Stock," and it should be formatted in a way that is structured and easy to parse programmatically, such as JSON.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Respond with “In Stock” if the customer asks for a product. This prompt is too generic and does not specify how to handle the case when a product is not available, nor does it provide a structured output format.

Option B: This option is correctly formatted and explicit. It instructs the LLM to respond based on the availability mentioned in the customer call transcript and to format the response in JSON. This structure allows for easy integration into systems that may need to process this information automatically, such as customer service dashboards or databases.

Option C: Respond with “Out of Stock” if the customer asks for a product. Like option A, this prompt is also insufficient as it only covers the scenario where a product is unavailable and does not provide a structured output.

Option D: While this prompt correctly specifies how to respond based on product availability, it lacks the structured output format, making it less suitable for systems that require formatted data for further processing.

Given the requirements for clear, programmatically usable outputs,Option Bis the optimal choice because it provides precise instructions on how to respond and includes a JSON format example for structuring the output, which is ideal for automated systems or further data handling.

When deploying an agent via the Mosaic AI Agent Framework (which leverages Databricks Model Serving),operational metricsare captured automatically by default. These include system-level telemetry such as the number of requests per second (volume), the time taken for the model to respond (latency), and the rate of 4xx/5xx HTTP errors. These are essential for monitoring Service Level Agreements (SLAs). However,Quality metrics(B), such as correctness, groundedness, or adherence to custom guidelines, cannot be determined "automatically" by the serving infrastructure because they require either human feedback or an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation (using Databricks Agent Evaluation). While Databricks makes it easy togeneratequality metrics using the mlflow.evaluate API or the inference table, they are not "default operational metrics" that appear without additional evaluation configuration.

Problem Context: After switching to a model with a shorter context length, the error message indicating that the prompt token count has exceeded the limit suggests that the input to the model is too large.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Use a smaller embedding model to generate– This wouldn't necessarily address the issue of prompt size exceeding the model’s token limit.

Option B: Reduce the maximum output tokens of the new model– This option affects the output length, not the size of the input being too large.

Option C: Decrease the chunk size of embedded documents– This would help reduce the size of each document chunk fed into the model, ensuring that the input remains within the model's context length limitations.

Option D: Reduce the number of records retrieved from the vector database– By retrieving fewer records, the total input size to the model can be managed more effectively, keeping it within the allowable token limits.

Option E: Retrain the response generating model using ALiBi– Retraining the model is contrary to the stipulation not to change the response generating model.

OptionsCandDare the most effective solutions to manage the model’s shorter context length without changing the model itself, by adjusting the input size both in terms of individual document size and total documents retrieved.

Problem Context: The chatbot must handle various types of queries and intelligently route them to the appropriate responses or systems.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Limiting the chatbot to only previous event information restricts its utility and does not meet the broader business requirements.

Option B: Having two separate chatbots could unnecessarily complicate user interaction and increase maintenance overhead.

Option C: Implementing a multi-step workflow where the chatbot first identifies the type of question and then routes it accordingly is the most efficient and scalable solution. This approach allows the chatbot to handle a variety of queries dynamically, improving user experience and operational efficiency.

Option D: Focusing solely on payments would not satisfy all the specified user interaction needs, such as inquiring about event details.

Option Coffers a comprehensive workflow that maximizes the chatbot’s utility and responsiveness to different user needs, aligning perfectly with the business requirements.

The task is to extend a cinema chatbot to provide movie showtime information using a RAG application, leveraging user location and a continuously updated Delta table, with minimal effort and high performance. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Create a Feature Serving Endpoint from a FeatureSpec that references an online store synced from the Delta table. Query the Feature Serving Endpoint as part of the agent logic / tool implementation

Databricks Feature Serving provides low-latency access to real-time data from Delta tables via an online store. Syncing the Delta table to a Feature Serving Endpoint allows the chatbot to query showtimes efficiently, integrating seamlessly into the RAG agent’s tool logic. This leverages Databricks’ native infrastructure, minimizing effort and ensuring performance.

Databricks Reference:"Feature Serving Endpoints provide real-time access to Delta table data with low latency, ideal for production systems"("Databricks Feature Engineering Guide," 2023).

Option B: Query the Delta table directly via a SQL query constructed from the user's input using a text-to-SQL LLM in the agent logic / tool

Using a text-to-SQL LLM to generate queries adds complexity (e.g., ensuring accurate SQL generation) and latency (LLM inference + SQL execution). While feasible, it’s less performant and requires more effort than a pre-built serving solution.

Databricks Reference:"Direct SQL queries are flexible but may introduce overhead in real-time applications"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

Option C: Write the Delta table contents to a text column, then embed those texts using an embedding model and store these in the vector index. Look up the information based on the embedding as part of the agent logic / tool implementation

Converting structured Delta table data (e.g., showtimes) into text, embedding it, and using vector search is inefficient for structured lookups. It’s effort-intensive (preprocessing, embedding) and less precise than direct queries, undermining performance.

Databricks Reference:"Vector search excels for unstructured data, not structured tabular lookups"("Databricks Vector Search Documentation").

Option D: Set up a task in Databricks Workflows to write the information in the Delta table periodically to an external database such as MySQL and query the information from there as part of the agent logic / tool implementation

Exporting to an external database (e.g., MySQL) adds setup effort (workflow, external DB management) and latency (periodic updates vs. real-time). It’s less performant and more complex than using Databricks’ native tools.

Databricks Reference:"Avoid external systems when Delta tables provide real-time data natively"("Databricks Workflows Guide").

Conclusion: Option A minimizes effort by using Databricks Feature Serving for real-time, low-latency access to the Delta table, ensuring high performance in a production-ready RAG chatbot.

When prioritizing cost and latency over quality in a Large Language Model (LLM)-based application, it is crucial to select a configuration that minimizes both computational resources and latency while still providing reasonable performance. Here's whyDis the best choice:

Context length: The context length of 512 tokens aligns with the chunk size used for the documents (maximum of 512 tokens per chunk). This is sufficient for capturing the needed information and generating responses without unnecessary overhead.

Smallest model size: The model with a size of 0.13GB is significantly smaller than the other options. This small footprint ensures faster inference times and lower memory usage, which directly reduces both latency and cost.

Embedding dimension: While the embedding dimension of 384 is smaller than the other options, it is still adequate for tasks where cost and speed are more important than precision and depth of understanding.

This setup achieves the desired balance between cost-efficiency and reasonable performance in a latency-sensitive, cost-conscious application.

 Problem Context: The task is to build an LLM-based question-answering application that integrates new documents frequently with minimal costs and development efforts.

 Explanation of Options:

Option A: Utilizes a prompt and a retriever, with the retriever output being fed into the LLM. This setup is efficient because it dynamically updates the data pool via the retriever, allowing the LLM to provide up-to-date answers based on the latest documents without needing to frequently retrain the model. This method offers a balance of cost-effectiveness and functionality.

Option B: Requires frequent retraining of the LLM, which is costly and labor-intensive.

Option C: Only involves prompt engineering and an LLM, which may not adequately handle the requirement for incorporating new documents unless it’s part of an ongoing retraining or updating mechanism, which would increase costs.

Option D: Involves an agent and a fine-tuned LLM, which could be overkill and lead to higher development and operational costs.

Option Ais the most suitable as it provides a cost-effective, minimal development approach while ensuring the application remains up-to-date with new information.

The task involves improving a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application’s performance by experimenting with embedding models. The choice of embedding model impacts retrieval accuracy, which is critical for RAG systems. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks Generative AI Engineer best practices.

Option A: Pick an embedding model trained on related domain knowledge

Embedding models trained on domain-specific data (e.g., industry-specific corpora) produce vectors that better capture the semantics of the application’s context, improving retrieval relevance. For RAG, this is a key strategy to enhance performance.

Databricks Reference:"For optimal retrieval in RAG systems, select embedding models aligned with the domain of your data"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks," 2023).

Option B: Pick the most recent and most performant open LLM released at the time

LLMs are not embedding models; they generate text, not embeddings for retrieval. While recent LLMs may be performant for generation, this doesn’t address the embedding step in RAG. This option misunderstands the component being selected.

Databricks Reference: Embedding models and LLMs are distinct in RAG workflows:"Embedding models convert text to vectors, while LLMs generate responses"("Generative AI Cookbook").

Option C: Pick the embedding model ranked highest on the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) leaderboard hosted by HuggingFace

The MTEB leaderboard ranks models across general tasks, but high overall performance doesn’t guarantee suitability for a specific domain. A top-ranked model might excel in generic contexts but underperform on the engineer’s unique data.

Databricks Reference: General performance is less critical than domain fit:"Benchmark rankings provide a starting point, but domain-specific evaluation is recommended"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Option D: Pick an embedding model with multilingual support to support potential multilingual user questions

Multilingual support is useful only if the application explicitly requires it. Without evidence of multilingual needs, this adds complexity without guaranteed performance gains for the current use case.

Databricks Reference:"Choose features like multilingual support based on application requirements"("Building LLM-Powered Applications").

Conclusion: Option A is the best strategy because it prioritizes domain relevance, directly improving retrieval accuracy in a RAG system—aligning with Databricks’ emphasis on tailoring models to specific use cases.

The Generative AI Engineer needs to follow a methodical pipeline to build and deploy a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application. The steps outlined in optionBaccurately reflect this process:

Ingest documents from a source: This is the first step, where the engineer collects documents (e.g., technical regulations) that will be used for retrieval when the application answers user questions.

Index the documents and save to Vector Search: Once the documents are ingested, they need to be embedded using a technique like embeddings (e.g., with a pre-trained model like BERT) and stored in a vector database (such as Pinecone or FAISS). This enables fast retrieval based on user queries.

User submits queries against an LLM: Users interact with the application by submitting their queries. These queries will be passed to the LLM.

LLM retrieves relevant documents: The LLM works with the vector store to retrieve the most relevant documents based on their vector representations.

LLM generates a response: Using the retrieved documents, the LLM generates a response that is tailored to the user's question.

Evaluate model: After generating responses, the system must be evaluated to ensure the retrieved documents are relevant and the generated response is accurate. Metrics such as accuracy, relevance, and user satisfaction can be used for evaluation.

Deploy it using Model Serving: Once the RAG pipeline is ready and evaluated, it is deployed using a model-serving platform such as Databricks Model Serving. This enables real-time inference and response generation for users.

By following these steps, the Generative AI Engineer ensures that the RAG application is both efficient and effective for the task of answering technical regulation questions.

Prompt chaining is a fundamental design pattern in LLM application development used to handle complexity. Instead of sending a single, massive, and highly complex prompt to an LLM—which often results in reasoning errors or hallucinations—chaining breaks the logic into a sequence of smaller, targeted steps. For example, a legal assistant might first chain a step to "identify the legal jurisdiction," followed by a step to "extract relevant statutes," and finally a step to "summarize the findings." This modularity improves reliability because each prompt has a narrower focus, making it easier for the model to follow instructions accurately. While it may actually increase latency (contradicting B) and cost (contradicting D) due to multiple API calls, the primary engineering benefit is the significant boost in the quality and robustness of the output. It also allows for intermediate validation and error handling between steps, which is impossible in a single-call architecture.

The problem describes a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for HR policy Q&A where responses are incomplete and unstructured due to the retriever failing to return sufficient context. The engineer has already tried different embedding and response-generating LLMs without success, suggesting the issue lies in the retrieval process—specifically, how documents are chunked and indexed. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Add the section header as a prefix to chunks

Adding section headers provides additional context to each chunk, helping the retriever understand the chunk’s relevance within the document structure (e.g., “Leave Policy: Annual Leave” vs. just “Annual Leave”). This can improve retrieval precision for structured HR policies.

Databricks Reference:"Metadata, such as section headers, can be appended to chunks to enhance retrieval accuracy in RAG systems"("Databricks Generative AI Cookbook," 2023).

Option B: Increase the document chunk size

Larger chunks include more context per retrieval, reducing the chance of missing relevant information split across smaller chunks. For structured HR policies, this can ensure entire sections or rules are retrieved together.

Databricks Reference:"Increasing chunk size can improve context completeness, though it may trade off with retrieval specificity"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

Option C: Split the document by sentence

Splitting by sentence creates very small chunks, which could exacerbate the problem by fragmenting context further. This is likely why the current system fails—it retrieves incomplete snippets rather than cohesive policy sections.

Databricks Reference: No specific extract opposes this, but the emphasis on context completeness in RAG suggests smaller chunks worsen incomplete responses.

Option D: Use a larger embedding model

A larger embedding model might improve vector quality, but the question states that experimenting with different embedding models didn’t help. This suggests the issue isn’t embedding quality but rather chunking/retrieval strategy.

Databricks Reference: Embedding models are critical, but not the focus when retrieval context is the bottleneck.

Option E: Fine tune the response generation model

Fine-tuning the LLM could improve response coherence, but if the retriever doesn’t provide complete context, the LLM can’t generate full answers. The root issue is retrieval, not generation.

Databricks Reference: Fine-tuning is recommended for domain-specific generation, not retrieval fixes ("Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Conclusion: Options A and B address the retrieval issue directly by enhancing chunk context—either through metadata (A) or size (B)—aligning with Databricks’ RAG optimization strategies. C would worsen the problem, while D and E don’t target the root cause given prior experimentation.

The task is to set up a Databricks Vector Search index for news articles, supporting queries like “monster truck news around January 5th, 1992,” with minimal effort. The index must filter by topic and a 10-day date range. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Split articles by 10-day blocks and return the block closest to the query

Pre-splitting articles into 10-day blocks requires significant preprocessing and index management (e.g., one index per block). It’s effort-intensive and inflexible for dynamic date ranges.

Databricks Reference:"Static partitioning increases setup complexity; metadata filtering is preferred"("Databricks Vector Search Documentation").

Option B: Include metadata columns for article date and topic to support metadata filtering

Adding date and topic as metadata in the Vector Search index allows dynamic filtering (e.g., date ± 5 days, topic = “monster truck”) at query time. This leverages Databricks’ built-in metadata filtering, minimizing setup effort.

Databricks Reference:"Vector Search supports metadata filtering on columns like date or category for precise retrieval with minimal preprocessing"("Vector Search Guide," 2023).

Option C: Pass the query directly to the vector search index and return the best articles

Passing the full query (e.g., “Tell me about monster truck news around January 5th, 1992”) to Vector Search relies solely on embeddings, ignoring structured filtering for date and topic. This risks inaccurate results without explicit range logic.

Databricks Reference:"Pure vector similarity may not handle temporal or categorical constraints effectively"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

Option D: Create separate indexes by topic and add a classifier model to appropriately pick the best index

Separate indexes per topic plus a classifier model adds significant complexity (index creation, model training, maintenance), far exceeding “least effort.” It’s overkill for this use case.

Databricks Reference:"Multiple indexes increase overhead; single-index with metadata is simpler"("Databricks Vector Search Documentation").

Conclusion: Option B is the simplest and most effective solution, using metadata filtering in a single Vector Search index to handle date ranges and topics, aligning with Databricks’ emphasis on efficient, low-effort setups.

The scenario describes a common "retrieval gap" where the initial bi-encoder (embedding model) used for vector search identifies relevant documents but does not rank them perfectly. This happens because embedding models represent entire documents as a single vector, which can lose nuance. The standard engineering solution is to implement aReranker(Cross-Encoder). Unlike embedding models, a reranker processes the query and a candidate document simultaneously, allowing it to capture deep semantic interactions between the two. In a Mosaic AI workflow, after the vector search retrieves the top $k$ documents, the reranker evaluates those specific $k$ documents to produce a more accurate relevance score. This ensures that the most contextually relevant documents are placed at the top of the list (and thus the top of the LLM prompt), which is crucial because LLMs are sensitive to document order and often prioritize information found at the beginning of the context.

 Problem Context: The Generative AI Engineer needs a model for a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application that provides high-quality answers, where latency and throughput are not major concerns. The key factors areconfidentialityandsensitivityof the data, as well as the requirement for all processing to be confined to internal resources without external data transmission.

 Explanation of Options:

Option A: Dolly 1.5B: This model does not typically support RAG applications as it's more focused on image generation tasks.

Option B: OpenAI GPT-4: While GPT-4 is powerful for generating responses, its standard deployment involves cloud-based processing, which could violate the confidentiality requirements due to external data transmission.

Option C: BGE-large: The BGE (Big Green Engine) large model is a suitable choice if it is configured to operate on-premises or within a secure internal environment that meets regulatory requirements. Assuming this setup, BGE-large can provide high-quality answers while ensuring that data is not transmitted to third parties, thus aligning with the project's sensitivity and confidentiality needs.

Option D: Llama2-70B: Similar to GPT-4, unless specifically set up for on-premises use, it generally relies on cloud-based services, which might risk confidential data exposure.

Given the sensitivity and confidentiality concerns,BGE-largeis assumed to be configurable for secure internal use, making it the optimal choice for this scenario.

The task described in the question involves enhancing customer experience by automatically handling common customer inquiries using an LLM-powered AI solution. This requires the system to process input data (customer inquiries) and generate personalized, relevant responses efficiently. Let’s evaluate the options step-by-step in the context of Databricks Generative AI Engineer principles, which emphasize leveraging LLMs for tasks like question answering, summarization, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).

Option A: Input: Customer reviews; Output: Group the reviews by users and aggregate per-user average rating, then respond

This option focuses on analyzing customer reviews to compute average ratings per user. While this might be useful for sentiment analysis or user profiling, it does not directly address the goal of handling common customer inquiries or improving response times for personalized interactions. Customer reviews are typically feedback data, not real-time inquiries requiring immediate responses.

Databricks Reference: Databricks documentation on LLMs (e.g., "Building LLM Applications with Databricks") emphasizes that LLMs excel at tasks like question answering and conversational responses, not just aggregation or statistical analysis of reviews.

Option B: Input: Customer service chat logs; Output: Group the chat logs by users, followed by summarizing each user's interactions, then respond

This option uses chat logs as input, which aligns with customer service scenarios. However, the output—grouping by users and summarizing interactions—focuses on user-specific summaries rather than directly addressing inquiries. While summarization is an LLM capability, this approach lacks the specificity of finding answers to common questions, which is central to the problem.

Databricks Reference: Per Databricks’ "Generative AI Cookbook," LLMs can summarize text, but for customer service, the emphasis is on retrieval and response generation (e.g., RAG workflows) rather than user interaction summaries alone.

Option C: Input: Customer service chat logs; Output: Find the answers to similar questions and respond with a summary

This option uses chat logs (real customer inquiries) as input and tasks the LLM with identifying answers to similar questions, then providing a summarized response. This directly aligns with the goal of handling common inquiries efficiently while maintaining personalization (by referencing past interactions or similar cases). It leverages LLM capabilities like semantic search, retrieval, and response generation, which are core to Databricks’ LLM workflows.

Databricks Reference: From Databricks documentation ("Building LLM-Powered Applications," 2023), an exact extract states:"For customer support use cases, LLMs can be used to retrieve relevant answers from historical data like chat logs and generate concise, contextually appropriate responses."This matches Option C’s approach of finding answers and summarizing them.

Option D: Input: Customer reviews; Output: Classify review sentiment

This option focuses on sentiment classification of reviews, which is a valid LLM task but unrelated to handling customer inquiries or improving response times in a conversational context. It’s more suited for feedback analysis than real-time customer service.

Databricks Reference: Databricks’ "Generative AI Engineer Guide" notes that sentiment analysis is a common LLM task, but it’s not highlighted for real-time conversational applications like customer support.

Conclusion: Option C is the best fit because it uses relevant input (chat logs) and defines an LLM task (finding answers and summarizing) that meets the requirements of improving response times and maintaining personalized interaction. This aligns with Databricks’ recommended practices for LLM-powered customer service solutions, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) workflows.