Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Exam Dumps

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 a vector store (a database that stores vector representations of text). Each chunk of text is transformed into an embedding using 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.

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.

In this scenario, the chatbot must avoid answering political questions and instead provide a standard message for such inquiries. Implementing a Safety Guardrail is the appropriate solution for this:

What is a Safety Guardrail? Safety guardrails are mechanisms implemented in Generative AI systems to ensure the model behaves within specific bounds. In this case, it ensures the chatbot does not answer politically sensitive or irrelevant questions, which aligns with the business rules.

Preventing Responses to Political Questions: The Safety Guardrail is programmed to detect specific types of inquiries (like political questions) and prevent the model from generating responses outside its intended domain. When such queries are detected, the guardrail intervenes and provides a pre-defined response: ''Sorry, I cannot answer that. I am a chatbot that can only answer questions around insurance.''

How It Works in Practice: The LLM system can include a classification layer or trigger rules based on specific keywords related to politics. When such terms are detected, the Safety Guardrail blocks the normal generation flow and responds with the fixed message.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

B (Security Guardrail): This is more focused on protecting the system from security vulnerabilities or data breaches, not controlling the conversational focus.

C (Contextual Guardrail): While context guardrails can limit responses based on context, safety guardrails are specifically about ensuring the chatbot stays within a safe conversational scope.

D (Compliance Guardrail): Compliance guardrails are often related to legal and regulatory adherence, which is not directly relevant here.

Therefore, a Safety Guardrail is the right framework to ensure the chatbot only answers insurance-related queries and avoids political discussions.

The task at hand is to improve the LLM's ability to generate poem-like article summaries with the desired tone and style. Using a neutralizer to normalize the tone and style of the underlying documents (option B) will not help improve the LLM's ability to generate the desired poetic style. Here's why:

Neutralizing Underlying Documents: A neutralizer aims to reduce or standardize the tone of input data. However, this contradicts the goal, which is to generate text with a specific tone and style (like haikus). Neutralizing the source documents will strip away the richness of the content, making it harder for the LLM to generate creative, stylistic outputs like poems.

Why Other Options Improve Results:

A (Explicit Instructions in the Prompt): Directly instructing the LLM to generate text in a specific tone and style helps align the output with the desired format (e.g., haikus). This is a common and effective technique in prompt engineering.

C (Few-shot Examples): Providing examples of the desired output format helps the LLM understand the expected tone and structure, making it easier to generate similar outputs.

D (Fine-tuning the LLM): Fine-tuning the model on a dataset that contains examples of the desired tone and style is a powerful way to improve the model's ability to generate outputs that match the target format.

Therefore, using a neutralizer (option B) is not an effective method for achieving the goal of generating stylized poetic summaries.

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.