[2025年03月]更新のDatabricks Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate試験練習テスト問題
更新された認定試験Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate問題集で練習テスト問題
質問 # 20
A small and cost-conscious startup in the cancer research field wants to build a RAG application using Foundation Model APIs.
Which strategy would allow the startup to build a good-quality RAG application while being cost-conscious and able to cater to customer needs?
- A. Limit the number of queries a customer can send per day
- B. Limit the number of relevant documents available for the RAG application to retrieve from
- C. Use the largest LLM possible because that gives the best performance for any general queries
- D. Pick a smaller LLM that is domain-specific
正解：D
解説：
For a small, cost-conscious startup in the cancer research field, choosing a domain-specific and smaller LLM is the most effective strategy. Here's whyBis the best choice:
* Domain-specific performance: A smaller LLM that has been fine-tuned for the domain of cancer research will outperform a general-purpose LLM for specialized queries. This ensures high-quality responses without needing to rely on a large, expensive LLM.
* Cost-efficiency: Smaller models are cheaper to run, both in terms of compute resources and API usage costs. A domain-specific smaller LLM can deliver good quality responses without the need for the extensive computational power required by larger models.
* Focused knowledge: In a specialized field like cancer research, having an LLM tailored to the subject matter provides better relevance and accuracy for queries, while keeping costs low.Large, general- purpose LLMs may provide irrelevant information, leading to inefficiency and higher costs.
This approach allows the startup to balance quality, cost, and customer satisfaction effectively, making it the most suitable strategy.
質問 # 21
A Generative AI Engineer is designing an LLM-powered live sports commentary platform. The platform provides real-time updates and LLM-generated analyses for any users who would like to have live summaries, rather than reading a series of potentially outdated news articles.
Which tool below will give the platform access to real-time data for generating game analyses based on the latest game scores?
- A. Feature Serving
- B. Foundation Model APIs
- C. AutoML
- D. DatabrickslQ
正解：A
解説：
* Problem Context: The engineer is developing an LLM-powered live sports commentary platform that needs to provide real-time updates and analyses based on the latest game scores. The critical requirement here is the capability to access and integrate real-time data efficiently with the platform for immediate analysis and reporting.
* Explanation of Options:
* Option A: DatabricksIQ: While DatabricksIQ offers integration and data processing capabilities, it is more aligned with data analytics rather than real-time feature serving, which is crucial for immediate updates necessary in a live sports commentary context.
* Option B: Foundation Model APIs: These APIs facilitate interactions with pre-trained models and could be part of the solution, but on their own, they do not provide mechanisms to access real- time game scores.
* Option C: Feature Serving: This is the correct answer as feature serving specifically refers to the real-time provision of data (features) to models for prediction. This would be essential for an LLM that generates analyses based on live game data, ensuring that the commentary is current and based on the latest events in the sport.
* Option D: AutoML: This tool automates the process of applying machine learning models to real-world problems, but it does not directly provide real-time data access, which is a critical requirement for the platform.
Thus,Option C(Feature Serving) is the most suitable tool for the platform as it directly supports the real-time data needs of an LLM-powered sports commentary system, ensuring that the analyses and updates are based on the latest available information.
質問 # 22
A Generative AI Engineer wants to build an LLM-based solution to help a restaurant improve its online customer experience with bookings by automatically handling common customer inquiries. The goal of the solution is to minimize escalations to human intervention and phone calls while maintaining a personalized interaction. To design the solution, the Generative AI Engineer needs to define the input data to the LLM and the task it should perform.
Which input/output pair will support their goal?
- A. Input: Customer reviews; Output: Classify review sentiment
- B. Input: Online chat logs; Output: Buttons that represent choices for booking details
- C. Input: Online chat logs; Output: Group the chat logs by users, followed by summarizing each user's interactions
- D. Input: Online chat logs; Output: Cancellation options
正解：B
解説：
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.
質問 # 23
A team wants to serve a code generation model as an assistant for their software developers. It should support multiple programming languages. Quality is the primary objective.
Which of the Databricks Foundation Model APIs, or models available in the Marketplace, would be the best fit?
- A. CodeLlama-34B
- B. MPT-7b
- C. BGE-large
- D. Llama2-70b
正解：A
解説：
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.
質問 # 24
A Generative AI Engineer is building a RAG application that will rely on context retrieved from source documents that are currently in PDF format. These PDFs can contain both text and images. They want to develop a solution using the least amount of lines of code.
Which Python package should be used to extract the text from the source documents?
- A. numpy
- B. beautifulsoup
- C. unstructured
- D. flask
正解：C
解説：
* Problem Context: The engineer needs to extract text from PDF documents, which may contain both text and images. The goal is to find a Python package that simplifies this task using the least amount of code.
* Explanation of Options:
* Option A: flask: Flask is a web framework for Python, not suitable for processing or extracting content from PDFs.
* Option B: beautifulsoup: Beautiful Soup is designed for parsing HTML and XML documents, not PDFs.
* Option C: unstructured: This Python package is specifically designed to work with unstructured data, including extracting text from PDFs. It provides functionalities to handle various types of content in documents with minimal coding, making it ideal for the task.
* Option D: numpy: Numpy is a powerful library for numerical computing in Python and does not provide any tools for text extraction from PDFs.
Given the requirement,Option C(unstructured) is the most appropriate as it directly addresses the need to efficiently extract text from PDF documents with minimal code.
質問 # 25
A Generative AI Engineer is designing a chatbot for a gaming company that aims to engage users on its platform while its users play online video games.
Which metric would help them increase user engagement and retention for their platform?
- A. Repetition of responses
- B. Diversity of responses
- C. Lack of relevance
- D. Randomness
正解：B
解説：
In the context of designing a chatbot to engage users on a gaming platform,diversity of responses(option B) is a key metric to increase user engagement and retention. Here's why:
* Diverse and Engaging Interactions:A chatbot that provides varied and interesting responses will keep users engaged, especially in an interactive environment like a gaming platform. Gamers typically enjoy dynamic and evolving conversations, anddiversity of responseshelps prevent monotony, encouraging users to interact more frequently with the bot.
* Increasing Retention:By offering different types of responses to similar queries, the chatbot can create a sense of novelty and excitement, which enhances the user's experience and makes them more likely to return to the platform.
* Why Other Options Are Less Effective:
* A (Randomness): Random responses can be confusing or irrelevant, leading to frustration and reducing engagement.
* C (Lack of Relevance): If responses are not relevant to the user's queries, this will degrade the user experience and lead to disengagement.
* D (Repetition of Responses): Repetitive responses can quickly bore users, making the chatbot feel uninteresting and reducing the likelihood of continued interaction.
Thus,diversity of responses(option B) is the most effective way to keep users engaged and retain them on the platform.
質問 # 26
A Generative AI Engineer is building a Generative AI system that suggests the best matched employee team member to newly scoped projects. The team member is selected from a very large team. Thematch should be based upon project date availability and how well their employee profile matches the project scope. Both the employee profile and project scope are unstructured text.
How should the Generative Al Engineer architect their system?
- A. Create a tool for finding available team members given project dates. Embed all project scopes into a vector store, perform a retrieval using team member profiles to find the best team member.
- B. Create a tool for finding team member availability given project dates, and another tool that uses an LLM to extract keywords from project scopes. Iterate through available team members' profiles and perform keyword matching to find the best available team member.
- C. Create a tool for finding available team members given project dates. Embed team profiles into a vector store and use the project scope and filtering to perform retrieval to find the available best matched team members.
- D. Create a tool to find available team members given project dates. Create a second tool that can calculate a similarity score for a combination of team member profile and the project scope. Iterate through the team members and rank by best score to select a team member.
正解：C
解説：
* Problem Context: The problem involves matching team members to new projects based on two main factors:
* Availability: Ensure the team members are available during the project dates.
* Profile-Project Match: Use the employee profiles (unstructured text) to find the best match for a project's scope (also unstructured text).
The two main inputs are theemployee profilesandproject scopes, both of which are unstructured. This means traditional rule-based systems (e.g., simple keyword matching) would be inefficient, especially when working with large datasets.
* Explanation of Options: Let's break down the provided options to understand why D is the most optimal answer.
* Option Asuggests embedding project scopes into a vector store and then performing retrieval using team member profiles. While embedding project scopes into a vector store is a valid technique, it skips an important detail: the focus should primarily be on embedding employee profiles because we're matching the profiles to a new project, not the other way around.
* Option Binvolves using a large language model (LLM) to extract keywords from the project scope and perform keyword matching on employee profiles. While LLMs can help with keyword extraction, this approach is too simplistic and doesn't leverage advanced retrieval techniques like vector embeddings, which can handle the nuanced and rich semantics of unstructured data. This approach may miss out on subtle but important similarities.
* Option Csuggests calculating a similarity score between each team member's profile and project scope. While this is a good idea, it doesn't specify how to handle the unstructured nature of data efficiently. Iterating through each member's profile individually could be computationally expensive in large teams. It also lacks the mention of using a vector store or an efficient retrieval mechanism.
* Option Dis the correct approach. Here's why:
* Embedding team profiles into a vector store: Using a vector store allows for efficient similarity searches on unstructured data. Embedding the team member profiles into vectors captures their semantics in a way that is far more flexible than keyword-based matching.
* Using project scope for retrieval: Instead of matching keywords, this approach suggests using vector embeddings and similarity search algorithms (e.g., cosine similarity) to find the team members whose profiles most closely align with the project scope.
* Filtering based on availability: Once the best-matched candidates are retrieved based on profile similarity, filtering them by availability ensures that the system provides a practically useful result.
This method efficiently handles large-scale datasets by leveragingvector embeddingsandsimilarity search techniques, both of which are fundamental tools inGenerative AI engineeringfor handling unstructured text.
* Technical References:
* Vector embeddings: In this approach, the unstructured text (employee profiles and project scopes) is converted into high-dimensional vectors using pretrained models (e.g., BERT, Sentence-BERT, or custom embeddings). These embeddings capture the semantic meaning of the text, making it easier to perform similarity-based retrieval.
* Vector stores: Solutions likeFAISSorMilvusallow storing and retrieving large numbers of vector embeddings quickly. This is critical when working with large teams where querying through individual profiles sequentially would be inefficient.
* LLM Integration: Large language models can assist in generating embeddings for both employee profiles and project scopes. They can also assist in fine-tuning similarity measures, ensuring that the retrieval system captures the nuances of the text data.
* Filtering: After retrieving the most similar profiles based on the project scope, filtering based on availability ensures that only team members who are free for the project are considered.
This system is scalable, efficient, and makes use of the latest techniques inGenerative AI, such as vector embeddings and semantic search.
質問 # 27
A Generative Al Engineer would like an LLM to generate formatted JSON from emails. This will require parsing and extracting the following information: order ID, date, and sender email. Here's a sample email:
They will need to write a prompt that will extract the relevant information in JSON format with the highest level of output accuracy.
Which prompt will do that?
- A. You will receive customer emails and need to extract date, sender email, and order ID. You should return the date, sender email, and order ID information in JSON format.
- B. You will receive customer emails and need to extract date, sender email, and order ID. Return the extracted information in a human-readable format.
- C. You will receive customer emails and need to extract date, sender email, and order ID. Return the extracted information in JSON format.
Here's an example: {"date": "April 16, 2024", "sender_email": "[email protected]", "order_id":
"RE987D"} - D. You will receive customer emails and need to extract date, sender email, and order ID. Return the extracted information in JSON format.
正解：C
解説：
Problem Context: The goal is to parse emails to extract certain pieces of information and output this in a structured JSON format. Clarity and specificity in the prompt design will ensure higher accuracy in the LLM' s responses.
Explanation of Options:
* Option A: Provides a general guideline but lacks an example, which helps an LLM understand the exact format expected.
* Option B: Includes a clear instruction and a specific example of the output format. Providing an example is crucial as it helps set the pattern and format in which the information should be structured, leading to more accurate results.
* Option C: Does not specify that the output should be in JSON format, thus not meeting the requirement.
* Option D: While it correctly asks for JSON format, it lacks an example that would guide the LLM on how to structure the JSON correctly.
Therefore,Option Bis optimal as it not only specifies the required format but also illustrates it with an example, enhancing the likelihood of accurate extraction and formatting by the LLM.
質問 # 28
A Generative AI Engineer has been asked to build an LLM-based question-answering application. The application should take into account new documents that are frequently published. The engineer wants to build this application with the least cost and least development effort and have it operate at the lowest cost possible.
Which combination of chaining components and configuration meets these requirements?
- A. The LLM needs to be frequently with the new documents in order to provide most up-to-date answers.
- B. For the application a prompt, a retriever, and an LLM are required. The retriever output is inserted into the prompt which is given to the LLM to generate answers.
- C. For the application a prompt, an agent and a fine-tuned LLM are required. The agent is used by the LLM to retrieve relevant content that is inserted into the prompt which is given to the LLM to generate answers.
- D. For the question-answering application, prompt engineering and an LLM are required to generate answers.
正解：B
解説：
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 tofrequently 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.
質問 # 29
A Generative AI Engineer has been asked to design an LLM-based application that accomplishes the following business objective: answer employee HR questions using HR PDF documentation.
Which set of high level tasks should the Generative AI Engineer's system perform?
- A. Calculate averaged embeddings for each HR document, compare embeddings to user query to find the best document. Pass the best document with the user query into an LLM with a large context window to generate a response to the employee.
- B. Use an LLM to summarize HR documentation. Provide summaries of documentation and user query into an LLM with a large context window to generate a response to the user.
- C. Split HR documentation into chunks and embed into a vector store. Use the employee question to retrieve best matched chunks of documentation, and use the LLM to generate a response to the employee based upon the documentation retrieved.
- D. Create an interaction matrix of historical employee questions and HR documentation. Use ALS to factorize the matrix and create embeddings. Calculate the embeddings of new queries and use them to find the best HR documentation. Use an LLM to generate a response to the employee question based upon the documentation retrieved.
正解：C
解説：
To design an LLM-based application that can answer employee HR questions using HR PDF documentation, the most effective approach is option D. Here's why:
* Chunking and Vector Store Embedding:HR documentation tends to be lengthy, so splitting it into smaller, manageable chunks helps optimize retrieval. These chunks are then embedded into avector store(a database that stores vector representations of text). Each chunk of text is transformed into an embeddingusing a transformer-based model, which allows for efficient similarity-based retrieval.
* Using Vector Search for Retrieval:When an employee asks a question, the system converts their query into an embedding as well. This embedding is then compared with the embeddings of the document chunks in the vector store. The most semantically similar chunks are retrieved, which ensures that the answer is based on the most relevant parts of the documentation.
* LLM to Generate a Response:Once the relevant chunks are retrieved, these chunks are passed into the LLM, which uses them as context to generate a coherent and accurate response to the employee's question.
* Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:
* A (Calculate Averaged Embeddings): Averaging embeddings might dilute important information. It doesn't provide enough granularity to focus on specific sections of documents.
* B (Summarize HR Documentation): Summarization loses the detail necessary for HR-related queries, which are often specific. It would likely miss the mark for more detailed inquiries.
* C (Interaction Matrix and ALS): This approach is better suited for recommendation systems and not for HR queries, as it's focused on collaborative filtering rather than text-based retrieval.
Thus, option D is the most effective solution for providing precise and contextual answers based on HR documentation.
質問 # 30
Which indicator should be considered to evaluate the safety of the LLM outputs when qualitatively assessing LLM responses for a translation use case?
- A. The similarity to the previous language
- B. The latency of the response and the length of text generated
- C. The accuracy and relevance of the responses
- D. The ability to generate responses in code
正解：C
解説：
* 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.
質問 # 31
A Generative Al Engineer is creating an LLM-based application. The documents for its retriever have been chunked to a maximum of 512 tokens each. The Generative Al Engineer knows that cost and latency are more important than quality for this application. They have several context length levels to choose from.
Which will fulfill their need?
- A. context length 512: smallest model is 0.13GB and embedding dimension 384
- B. context length 32768: smallest model is 14GB and embedding dimension 4096
- C. context length 514; smallest model is 0.44GB and embedding dimension 768
- D. context length 2048: smallest model is 11GB and embedding dimension 2560
正解：A
解説：
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.
質問 # 32
A Generative Al Engineer has already trained an LLM on Databricks and it is now ready to be deployed.
Which of the following steps correctly outlines the easiest process for deploying a model on Databricks?
- A. Log the model as a pickle object, upload the object to Unity Catalog Volume, register it to Unity Catalog using MLflow, and start a serving endpoint
- B. Log the model using MLflow during training, directly register the model to Unity Catalog using the MLflow API, and start a serving endpoint
- C. Wrap the LLM's prediction function into a Flask application and serve using Gunicorn
- D. Save the model along with its dependencies in a local directory, build the Docker image, and run the Docker container
正解：B
解説：
* Problem Context: The goal is to deploy a trained LLM on Databricks in the simplest and most integrated manner.
* Explanation of Options:
* Option A: This method involves unnecessary steps like logging the model as a pickle object, which is not the most efficient path in a Databricks environment.
* Option B: Logging the model with MLflow during training and then using MLflow's API to register and start serving the model is straightforward and leverages Databricks' built-in functionalities for seamless model deployment.
* Option C: Building and running a Docker container is a complex and less integrated approach within the Databricks ecosystem.
* Option D: Using Flask and Gunicorn is a more manual approach and less integrated compared to the native capabilities of Databricks and MLflow.
OptionBprovides the most straightforward and efficient process, utilizing Databricks' ecosystem to its full advantage for deploying models.
質問 # 33
A Generative AI Engineer is tasked with deploying an application that takes advantage of a custom MLflow Pyfunc model to return some interim results.
How should they configure the endpoint to pass the secrets and credentials?
- A. Add credentials using environment variables
- B. Use spark.conf.set ()
- C. Pass the secrets in plain text
- D. Pass variables using the Databricks Feature Store API
正解：A
解説：
Context: Deploying an application that uses an MLflow Pyfunc model involves managing sensitive information such as secrets and credentials securely.
Explanation of Options:
* Option A: Use spark.conf.set(): While this method can pass configurations within Spark jobs, using it for secrets is not recommended because it may expose them in logs or Spark UI.
* Option B: Pass variables using the Databricks Feature Store API: The Feature Store API is designed for managing features for machine learning, not for handling secrets or credentials.
* Option C: Add credentials using environment variables: This is a common practice for managing credentials in a secure manner, as environment variables can be accessed securely by applications without exposing them in the codebase.
* Option D: Pass the secrets in plain text: This is highly insecure and not recommended, as it exposes sensitive information directly in the code.
Therefore,Option Cis the best method for securely passing secrets and credentials to an application, protecting them from exposure.
質問 # 34
A Generative AI Engineer is developing an LLM application that users can use to generate personalized birthday poems based on their names.
Which technique would be most effective in safeguarding the application, given the potential for malicious user inputs?
- A. Increase the amount of compute that powers the LLM to process input faster
- B. Implement a safety filter that detects any harmful inputs and ask the LLM to respond that it is unable to assist
- C. Ask the LLM to remind the user that the input is malicious but continue the conversation with the user
- D. Reduce the time that the users can interact with the LLM
正解：B
解説：
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.
質問 # 35
After changing the response generating LLM in a RAG pipeline from GPT-4 to a model with a shorter context length that the company self-hosts, the Generative AI Engineer is getting the following error:
What TWO solutions should the Generative AI Engineer implement without changing the response generating model? (Choose two.)
- A. Use a smaller embedding model to generate
- B. Reduce the number of records retrieved from the vector database
- C. Reduce the maximum output tokens of the new model
- D. Retrain the response generating model using ALiBi
- E. Decrease the chunk size of embedded documents
正解：B、E
解説：
* 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.
質問 # 36
A Generative Al Engineer is tasked with developing a RAG application that will help a small internal group of experts at their company answer specific questions, augmented by an internal knowledge base. They want the best possible quality in the answers, and neither latency nor throughput is a huge concern given that the user group is small and they're willing to wait for the best answer. The topics are sensitive in nature and the data is highly confidential and so, due to regulatory requirements, none of the information is allowed to be transmitted to third parties.
Which model meets all the Generative Al Engineer's needs in this situation?
- A. Dolly 1.5B
- B. BGE-large
- C. Llama2-70B
- D. OpenAI GPT-4
正解：B
解説：
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.
質問 # 37
A Generative Al Engineer is creating an LLM system that will retrieve news articles from the year 1918 and related to a user's query and summarize them. The engineer has noticed that the summaries are generated well but often also include an explanation of how the summary was generated, which is undesirable.
Which change could the Generative Al Engineer perform to mitigate this issue?
- A. Provide few shot examples of desired output format to the system and/or user prompt.
- B. Split the LLM output by newline characters to truncate away the summarization explanation.
- C. Revisit their document ingestion logic, ensuring that the news articles are being ingested properly.
- D. Tune the chunk size of news articles or experiment with different embedding models.
正解：A
解説：
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.
質問 # 38
A Generative AI Engineer is testing a simple prompt template in LangChain using the code below, but is getting an error.
Assuming the API key was properly defined, what change does the Generative AI Engineer need to make to fix their chain?
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
正解：A
解説：
To fix the error in the LangChain code provided for using a simple prompt template, the correct approach is Option C. Here's a detailed breakdown of why Option C is the right choice and how it addresses the issue:
* Proper Initialization: In Option C, the LLMChain is correctly initialized with the LLM instance specified as OpenAI(), which likely represents a language model (like GPT) from OpenAI. This is crucial as it specifies which model to use for generating responses.
* Correct Use of Classes and Methods:
* The PromptTemplate is defined with the correct format, specifying that adjective is a variable within the template. This allows dynamic insertion of values into the template when generating text.
* The prompt variable is properly linked with the PromptTemplate, and the final template string is passed correctly.
* The LLMChain correctly references the prompt and the initialized OpenAI() instance, ensuring that the template and the model are properly linked for generating output.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect:
* Option A: Misuses the parameter passing in generate method by incorrectly structuring the dictionary.
* Option B: Incorrectly uses prompt.format method which does not exist in the context of LLMChain and PromptTemplate configuration, resulting in potential errors.
* Option D: Incorrect order and setup in the initialization parameters for LLMChain, which would likely lead to a failure in recognizing the correct configuration for prompt and LLM usage.
Thus, Option C is correct because it ensures that the LangChain components are correctly set up and integrated, adhering to proper syntax and logical flow required by LangChain's architecture. This setup avoids common pitfalls such as type errors or method misuses, which are evident in other options.
質問 # 39
......
Databricks Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate 認定試験の出題範囲：
| トピック | 出題範囲 |
|---|---|
| トピック 1 |
|
| トピック 2 |
|
| トピック 3 |
|
| トピック 4 |
|
| トピック 5 |
|
更新された検証済みのDatabricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate問題集と解答で合格保証もしくは全額返金：https://www.goshiken.com/Databricks/Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate-mondaishu.html
Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-AssociateのPDF問題とテストエンジンには47問があります：https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cTNRZBd6UPqH9D6YvcOW8kPXDbf7VJhB