Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Practice Exam Questions with Answers Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate Certification

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.

In the context of developing a chatbot for a company's internal HelpDesk Call Center, the key is to select data sources that provide the most contextual and detailed information about the issues being addressed. This includes identifying the root cause and suggesting resolutions. The two most appropriate sources from the list are:

Call Detail (Option D):

Contents: This Delta table includes a snapshot of all call details updated hourly, featuring essential fields like root_cause and resolution.

Relevance: The inclusion of root_cause and resolution fields makes this source particularly valuable, as it directly contains the information necessary to understand and resolve the issues discussed in the calls. Even if some records are incomplete, the data provided is crucial for a chatbot aimed at speeding up resolution identification.

Transcript Volume (Option E):

Contents: This Unity Catalog Volume contains recordings in .wav format and text transcripts in .txt files.

Relevance: The text transcripts of call recordings can provide in-depth context that the chatbot can analyze to understand the nuances of each issue. The chatbot can use natural language processing techniques to extract themes, identify problems, and suggest resolutions based on previous similar interactions documented in the transcripts.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A (Call Cust History): While it provides insights into customer interactions with the HelpDesk, it focuses more on the usage metrics rather than the content of the calls or the issues discussed.

B (Maintenance Schedule): This data is useful for understanding when services may not be available but does not contribute directly to resolving user issues or identifying root causes.

C (Call Rep History): Though it offers data on call durations and start times, which could help in assessing performance, it lacks direct information on the issues being resolved.

Therefore, Call Detail and Transcript Volume are the most relevant data sources for a chatbot designed to assist with identifying and resolving issues in a HelpDesk Call Center setting, as they provide direct and contextual information related to customer issues.

The task is to prevent toxic or unsafe responses in an LLM system using the Foundation Model API with minimal effort. Let’s assess the options.

Option A: Host Llama Guard on Foundation Model API and use it to detect unsafe responses

Llama Guard is a safety-focused model designed to detect toxic or unsafe content. Hosting it via the Foundation Model API (a Databricks service) integrates seamlessly with the existing system, requiring minimal setup (just deployment and a check step), and leverages provisioned throughput for performance.

Databricks Reference:"Foundation Model API supports hosting safety models like Llama Guard to filter outputs efficiently"("Foundation Model API Documentation," 2023).

Option B: Add some LLM calls to their chain to detect unsafe content before returning text

Using additional LLM calls (e.g., prompting an LLM to classify toxicity) increases latency, complexity, and effort (crafting prompts, chaining logic), and lacks the specificity of a dedicated safety model.

Databricks Reference:"Ad-hoc LLM checks are less efficient than purpose-built safety solutions"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

Option C: Add a regex expression on inputs and outputs to detect unsafe responses

Regex can catch simple patterns (e.g., profanity) but fails for nuanced toxicity (e.g., sarcasm, context-dependent harm), requiring significant manual effort to maintain and update rules.

Databricks Reference:"Regex-based filtering is limited for complex safety needs"("Generative AI Cookbook").

Option D: Ask users to report unsafe responses

User reporting is reactive, not preventive, and places burden on users rather than the system. It doesn’t limit unsafe outputs proactively and requires additional effort for feedback handling.

Databricks Reference:"Proactive guardrails are preferred over user-driven monitoring"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Conclusion: Option A (Llama Guard on Foundation Model API) is the least-effort, most effective approach, leveraging Databricks’ infrastructure for seamless safety integration.

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.

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 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’stool 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.

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.

In this case, the Generative AI Engineer is developing an application to generate personalized birthday poems, but there’s a need to safeguard againstmalicious user inputs. The best solution is to implement asafety filter(option A) to detect harmful or inappropriate inputs.

Safety Filter Implementation:Safety filters are essential for screening user input and preventing inappropriate content from being processed by the LLM. These filters can scan inputs for harmful language, offensive terms, or malicious content and intervene before the prompt is passed to the LLM.

Graceful Handling of Harmful Inputs:Once the safety filter detects harmful content, the system can provide a message to the user, such as "I'm unable to assist with this request," instead of processing or responding to malicious input. This protects the system from generating harmful content and ensures a controlled interaction environment.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

B (Reduce Interaction Time): Reducing the interaction time won’t prevent malicious inputs from being entered.

C (Continue the Conversation): While it’s possible to acknowledge malicious input, it is not safe to continue the conversation with harmful content. This could lead to legal or reputational risks.

D (Increase Compute Power): Adding more compute doesn’t address the issue of harmful content and would only speed up processing without resolving safety concerns.

Therefore, implementing asafety filterthat blocks harmful inputs is the most effective technique for safeguarding the application.

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.

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.

For a code generation model that supports multiple programming languages and where quality is the primary objective,CodeLlama-34Bis the most suitable choice. Here’s the reasoning:

Specialization in Code Generation:CodeLlama-34B is specifically designed for code generation tasks. This model has been trained with a focus on understanding and generating code, which makes it particularly adept at handling various programming languages and coding contexts.

Capacity and Performance:The "34B" indicates a model size of 34 billion parameters, suggesting a high capacity for handling complex tasks and generating high-quality outputs. The large model size typically correlates with better understanding and generation capabilities in diverse scenarios.

Suitability for Development Teams:Given that the model is optimized for code, it will be able to assist software developers more effectively than general-purpose models. It understands coding syntax, semantics, and the nuances of different programming languages.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A (Llama2-70b): While also a large model, it's more general-purpose and may not be as fine-tuned for code generation as CodeLlama.

B (BGE-large): This model may not specifically focus on code generation.

C (MPT-7b): Smaller than CodeLlama-34B and likely less capable in handling complex code generation tasks at high quality.

Therefore, for a high-quality, multi-language code generation application,CodeLlama-34B(option D) is the best fit.

? Context: The goal is to improve the online customer experience in a restaurant by handling common inquiries about bookings, minimizing escalations, and maintaining personalized interactions.

? Explanation of Options:

Option A: Grouping and summarizing chat logs by user could provide insights into customer interactions but does not directly address the task of handling booking inquiries or minimizing escalations.

Option B: Using chat logs to generate interactive buttons for booking details directly supports the goal of facilitating online bookings, minimizing the need for human intervention by providing clear, interactive options for customers to self-serve.

Option C: Classifying sentiment of customer reviews does not directly help with booking inquiries, although it might provide valuable feedback insights.

Option D: Providing cancellation options is helpful but narrowly focuses on one aspect of the booking process and doesn't support the broader goal of handling common inquiries about bookings.

Option Bbest supports the goal of improving online interactions by using chat logs to generate actionable items for customers, helping them complete booking tasks efficiently and reducing the need for human intervention.

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.