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

To optimize a chunking strategy for a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application, the Generative AI Engineer needs a structured approach to evaluating the chunking strategy, ensuring that the chosen configuration retrieves the most relevant information and leads to accurate and coherent LLM responses. Here's whyCandEare the correct strategies:

Strategy C: Evaluation Metrics (Recall, NDCG)

Define an evaluation metric: Common evaluation metrics such as recall, precision, or NDCG (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain) measure how well the retrieved chunks match the user's query and the expected response.

Recallmeasures the proportion of relevant information retrieved.

NDCGis often used when you want to account for both the relevance of retrieved chunks and the ranking or order in which they are retrieved.

Experiment with chunking strategies: Adjusting chunking strategies based on text structure (e.g., splitting by paragraph, chapter, or a fixed number of tokens) allows the engineer to experiment with various ways of slicing the text. Some chunks may better align with the user's query than others.

Evaluate performance: By using recall or NDCG, the engineer can methodically test various chunking strategies to identify which one yields the highest performance. This ensures that the chunking method provides the most relevant information when embedding and retrieving data from the vector store.

Strategy E: LLM-as-a-Judge Metric

Use the LLM as an evaluator: After retrieving chunks, the LLM can be used to evaluate the quality of answers based on the chunks provided. This could be framed as a "judge" function, where the LLM compares how well a given chunk answers previous user queries.

Optimize based on the LLM's judgment: By having the LLM assess previous answers and rate their relevance and accuracy, the engineer can collect feedback on how well different chunking configurations perform in real-world scenarios.

This metric could be a qualitative judgment on how closely the retrieved information matches the user's intent.

Tune chunking parameters: Based on the LLM's judgment, the engineer can adjust the chunk size or structure to better align with the LLM's responses, optimizing retrieval for future queries.

By combining these two approaches, the engineer ensures that the chunking strategy is systematically evaluated using both quantitative (recall/NDCG) and qualitative (LLM judgment) methods. This balanced optimization process results in improved retrieval relevance and, consequently, better response generation by the LLM.

Problem Context: The engineer needs a cost-effective deployment strategy for an LLM application with relatively low request volume.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Switching to external models may not provide the required control or integration necessary for specific application needs.

Option B: Using a pay-per-token model is cost-effective, especially for applications with variable or low request volumes, as it aligns costs directly with usage.

Option C: Changing to a model with fewer parameters could reduce costs, but might also impact the performance and capabilities of the application.

Option D: Manually throttling requests is a less efficient and potentially error-prone strategy for managing costs.

OptionBis ideal, offering flexibility and cost control, aligning expenses directly with the application's usage patterns.

To understand how a typical RAG-enabled customer-facing chatbot processes a user's question, let’s go through the correct sequence as depicted in the diagram and explained in option A:

Embedding Model (1):The first step involves the user's question being processed through an embedding model. This model converts the text into a vector format that numerically represents the text. This step is essential for allowing the subsequent vector search to operate effectively.

Vector Search (2):The vectors generated by the embedding model are then used in a vector search mechanism. This search identifies the most relevant documents or previously answered questions that are stored in a vector format in a database.

Context-Augmented Prompt (3):The information retrieved from the vector search is used to create a context-augmented prompt. This step involves enhancing the basic user query with additional relevant information gathered to ensure the generated response is as accurate and informative as possible.

Response-Generating LLM (4):Finally, the context-augmented prompt is fed into a response-generating large language model (LLM). This LLM uses the prompt to generate a coherent and contextually appropriate answer, which is then delivered as the final output to the user.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

B, C, D: These options suggest incorrect sequences that do not align with how a RAG system typically processes queries. They misplace the role of embedding models, vector search, and response generation in an order that would not facilitate effective information retrieval and response generation.

Thus, the correct sequence isembedding model, vector search, context-augmented prompt, response-generating LLM, which is option A.

Problem Context: The Generative AI Engineer needs a tool to build amulti-step LLM-based workflow. This type of workflow often involves chaining multiple steps together, such as query generation, retrieval of information, response generation, and post-processing, with LLMs integrated at several points.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Pandas: Pandas is a powerful data manipulation library for structured data analysis, but it is not designed for managing or orchestrating multi-step workflows, especially those involving LLMs.

Option B: TensorFlow: TensorFlow is primarily used for training and deploying machine learning models, especially deep learning models. It is not designed for orchestrating multi-step tasks in LLM-based workflows.

Option C: PySpark: PySpark is a distributed computing framework used for large-scale data processing. While useful for handling big data, it is not specialized for chaining LLM-based operations.

Option D: LangChain: LangChain is a purpose-built framework designed specifically fororchestrating multi-step workflowswith large language models (LLMs). It enables developers to easily chain different tasks, such as retrieving documents, summarizing information, and generating responses, all in a structured flow. This makes it the best tool for building complex LLM-based workflows.

Thus,LangChainis the most suitable library for creating multi-step LLM-based workflows.

Problem Context: After receiving positive feedback for the RAG application prototype, the next step is to formally evaluate the system to pinpoint areas for improvement.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: While cosine similarity scores are useful, they primarily measure similarity rather than the overall performance of an RAG system.

Option B: This option provides a systematic approach to evaluation by testing both retrieval and generation components separately. This allows for targeted improvements and a clear understanding of each component's performance, using MLflow’s metrics for a structured and standardized assessment.

Option C: Benchmarking multiple LLMs does not focus on evaluating the existing system’s components but rather on comparing different models.

Option D: Using an LLM as a judge is subjective and less reliable for systematic performance evaluation.

OptionBis the most comprehensive and structured approach, facilitating precise evaluations and improvements on specific components of the RAG system.

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.

Problem Context: When assessing the safety and effectiveness of LLM outputs in a translation use case, it is essential to ensure that the translations accurately and relevantly convey the intended message. The evaluation should focus on how well the LLM understands and processes different languages and contexts.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: The ability to generate responses in code– This is not relevant to translation quality or safety.

Option B: The similarity to the previous language– While ensuring that translations preserve the original's intent is important, this doesn't directly address the overall quality or safety of the translation.

Option C: The latency of the response and the length of text generated– These operational metrics are less critical in assessing the qualitative aspects of translation safety.

Option D: The accuracy and relevance of the responses– This is crucial in translation to ensure that the translated content is true to the original in meaning and appropriateness. Accuracy and relevance directly impact the effectiveness and safety of translations, especially in sensitive or nuanced contexts.

Thus,Option Dis the most important indicator when evaluating the safety of LLM outputs in translation, focusing on the core aspects that determine the utility and trustworthiness of translated content.

Problem Context: When using data to train a model, it’s essential to ensure compliance with licensing to avoid legal risks. Legal issues can arise from using data without permission, especially when it comes from third-party sources.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Reaching out to data curatorsbeforeusing the data is an appropriate action. This allows you to ensure you have permission or understand the licensing terms before starting to use the data in your model.

Option B: Usingoriginal datathat you personally created is always a safe option. Since you have full ownership over the data, there are no legal risks, as you control the licensing.

Option C: Using data that is explicitly labeled with an open license and adhering to the license terms is a correct and recommended approach. This ensures compliance with legal requirements.

Option D: Reaching out to the data curatorsafteryou have already started using the trained model isnot appropriate. If you’ve already used the data without understanding its licensing terms, you may have already violated the terms of use, which could lead to legal complications. It’s essential to clarify the licensing termsbeforeusing the data, not after.

Thus,Option Dis not appropriate because it could expose you to legal risks by using the data without first obtaining the proper licensing permissions.

For complex agentic systems (like those built with LangGraph or Autogen), standard logging is often insufficient because the "state" of the agent changes dynamically.MLflow Tracingis the designated Generative AI engineering standard for debugging these systems. Tracing provides a visual, hierarchical timeline of every call made during an agent's execution—including internal LLM reasoning, tool calls, and data transformations. When a step fails, the trace allows the engineer to click into that specific node to see the exact input sent to the LLM and the raw output received. This is much faster and more comprehensive than manually deconstructing the agent (D) or adding manual logs (C). While mlflow.evaluate (B) is useful for measuring performance across a whole dataset, it is not a tool for real-time debugging of a single execution failure.

The task requires an LLM pipeline for multi-stage reasoning with external tools, necessitating planning, adaptability, and complex reasoning. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks’ recommendations for advanced LLM workflows.

Option A: Train the LLM to generate a single, comprehensive response without interacting with any external tools, relying solely on its pre-trained knowledge

This approach limits the LLM to its static knowledge base, excluding external tools and multi-stage reasoning. It can’t adapt or plan actions dynamically, failing the requirements.

Databricks Reference:"External tools enhance LLM capabilities beyond pre-trained knowledge"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks," 2023).

Option B: Implement a framework like ReAct which allows the LLM to generate reasoning traces and perform task-specific actions that leverage external tools if necessary

ReAct (Reasoning + Acting) combines reasoning traces (step-by-step logic) with actions (e.g., tool calls), enabling the LLM to plan, adapt, and execute complex tasks iteratively. This meets all requirements: multi-stage reasoning, tool use, and adaptability.

Databricks Reference:"Frameworks like ReAct enable LLMs to interleave reasoning and external tool interactions for complex problem-solving"("Generative AI Cookbook," 2023).

Option C: Encourage the LLM to make multiple API calls in sequence without planning or structuring the calls, allowing the LLM to decide when and how to use external tools spontaneously

Unstructured, spontaneous API calls lack planning and may lead to inefficient or incorrect tool usage. This doesn’t ensure effective multi-stage reasoning or adaptability.

Databricks Reference: Structured frameworks are preferred:"Ad-hoc tool calls can reduce reliability in complex tasks"("Building LLM-Powered Applications").

Option D: Use a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting technique to guide the LLM through a series of reasoning steps, then manually input the results from external tools for the final answer

CoT improves reasoning but relies on manual tool interaction, breaking automation and adaptability. It’s not a scalable pipeline solution.

Databricks Reference:"Manual intervention is impractical for production LLM pipelines"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Conclusion: Option B (ReAct) is the best approach, as it integrates reasoning and tool use in a structured, adaptive framework, aligning with Databricks’ guidance for complex LLM workflows.

Problem Context: The engineer needs an efficient way to store chunks of unstructured documents to facilitate easy retrieval and search. The current dataframe consists of document filenames and associated text chunks.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Splitting into train and test sets is more relevant for model training scenarios and not directly applicable to storage for retrieval in a Vector Search index.

Option B: Flattening the dataframe such that each row contains a single chunk with a unique identifier is the most performant for storage and retrieval. This structure aligns well with how data is indexed and queried in vector search applications, making it easier to retrieve specific chunks efficiently.

Option C: Creating a unique identifier for each document only does not address the need to access individual chunks efficiently, which is critical in a Vector Search application.

Option D: Storing each chunk as an independent JSON file creates unnecessary overhead and complexity in managing and querying large volumes of files.

OptionBis the most efficient and practical approach, allowing for streamlined indexing and retrieval processes in a Delta table environment, fitting the requirements of a Vector Search index.

Problem Context: The engineer needs an open-source LLM with a large context window to develop an application.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: DistilBERT: While an efficient and smaller version of BERT, DistilBERT does not provide a particularly large context window.

Option B: MPT-30B: This model, while large, is not specified as being particularly notable for its context window capabilities.

Option C: Llama2-70B: Known for its large model size and extensive capabilities, including a large context window. It is also available as an open-source model, making it ideal for applications requiring extensive contextual understanding.

Option D: DBRX: This is not a recognized standard model in the context of large language models with extensive context windows.

Thus,Option C(Llama2-70B) is the best fit as it meets the criteria of having a large context window and being available for open-source use, suitable for developing robust language understanding applications.

According to Generative AI engineering standards for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), chunking strategy is a critical optimization variable. Setting the chunk size to match the model's maximum context window (e.g., 4k or 8k tokens) is a poor practice and should be discarded. Large chunks introduce significant "noise" into the LLM's context, as only a small portion of a massive chunk usually contains the answer to a specific query. This leads to the "lost in the middle" phenomenon where LLMs struggle to extract relevant information from bloated contexts. Furthermore, large chunks reduce the precision of the vector search. Standard best practices involve using smaller, semantically meaningful chunks (typically 256–512 tokens) with overlap to maintain context. In contrast, metadata filtering (B) is essential for narrowing searches to specific car years, fine-tuning embeddings (C) improves retrieval accuracy for domain-specific technical terms, and few-shot examples (D) guide the LLM's output format and tone.

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 LLM classifies mushroom species accurately but includes unwanted reasoning text, and the engineer wants only the label. Let’s assess how to control output format effectively.

Option A: Use few shot prompting to instruct the model on expected output format

Few-shot prompting provides examples (e.g., input: description, output: label). It can work but requires crafting multiple examples, which is effort-intensive and less direct than a clear instruction.

Databricks Reference:"Few-shot prompting guides LLMs via examples, effective for format control but requires careful design"("Generative AI Cookbook").

Option B: Use zero shot prompting to instruct the model on expected output format

Zero-shot prompting relies on a single instruction (e.g., “Return only the label”) without examples. It’s simpler than few-shot but may not consistently enforce succinctness if the LLM’s default behavior is verbose.

Databricks Reference:"Zero-shot prompting can specify output but may lack precision without examples"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

Option C: Use zero shot chain-of-thought prompting to prevent a verbose output format

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) encourages step-by-step reasoning, which increases verbosity—opposite to the desired outcome. This contradicts the goal of label-only output.

Databricks Reference:"CoT prompting enhances reasoning but often results in detailed responses"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Option D: Use a system prompt to instruct the model to be succinct in its answer

A system prompt (e.g., “Respond with only the species label, no additional text”) sets a global instruction for the LLM’s behavior. It’s direct, reusable, and effective for controlling output style across queries.

Databricks Reference:"System prompts define LLM behavior consistently, ideal for enforcing concise outputs"("Generative AI Cookbook," 2023).

Conclusion: Option D is the most effective and straightforward action, using a system prompt to enforce succinct, label-only responses, aligning with Databricks’ best practices for output control.

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.

 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 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.