Databricks Generative AI Engineer Associate Online Practice Questions

Explanation:
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 by including 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.

Explanation:
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 why D is 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.

Explanation:
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 is embedding model, vector search, context-augmented prompt, response-generating LLM, which is option A.

Explanation:
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 why A is 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.

Explanation:
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.
Option B is the most comprehensive and structured approach, facilitating precise evaluations and improvements on specific components of the RAG system.