Databricks Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate Exam Practice Test

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.

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.

 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.

The most effective way to preprocess prompts using custom code is to write a custom model, such as anMLflow PyFunc model. Here’s a breakdown of why this is the correct approach:

MLflow PyFunc Models:MLflow is a widely used platform for managing the machine learning lifecycle, including experimentation, reproducibility, and deployment. APyFuncmodel is a generic Python function model that can implement custom logic, which includes preprocessing prompts.

Preprocessing Prompts:Preprocessing could include various tasks like cleaning up the user input, formatting it according to specific rules, or augmenting it with additional context before passing it to the LLM. Writing this preprocessing as part of a PyFunc model allows the custom code to be managed, tested, and deployed easily.

Modular and Reusable:By separating the preprocessing logic into a PyFunc model, the system becomes modular, making it easier to maintain and update without needing to modify the core LLM or retrain it.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A (Modify LLM’s Internal Architecture): Directly modifying the LLM's architecture is highly impractical and can disrupt the model’s performance. LLMs are typically treated as black-box models for tasks like prompt processing.

B (Avoid Custom Code): While it’s true that LLMs haven't been explicitly trained with preprocessed prompts, preprocessing can still improve clarity and alignment with desired input formats without confusing the model.

C (Postprocessing Outputs): While postprocessing the output can be useful, it doesn't address the need for clean and well-formatted inputs, which directly affect the quality of the model's responses.

Thus, using an MLflow PyFunc model allows for flexible and controlled preprocessing of prompts in a scalable way, making it the most effective method.

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.

In this scenario, the Generative AI Engineer needs to design a system that can handle different types of queries about the monster truck team. The queries may involve text-based information, API lookups for event dates, or table queries for standings. The best solution is to implement atool-based agent system.

Here’s how option B works, and why it’s the most appropriate answer:

System Design Using Agent-Based Model:In modern agent-based LLM systems, you can design a system where the LLM (Large Language Model) acts as a central orchestrator. The model can "decide" which tools to use based on the query. These tools can include API calls, table lookups, or natural language searches. The system should contain asystem promptthat informs the LLM about the available tools.

System Prompt Listing Tools:By creating a well-craftedsystem prompt, the LLM knows which tools are at its disposal. For instance, one tool may query an external API for event dates, another might look up standings in a database, and a third may involve searching a vector database for general text-based information. Theagentwill be responsible for calling the appropriate tool depending on the query.

Agent Orchestration of Calls:The agent system is designed to execute a series of steps based on the incoming query. If a user asks for the next event date, the system will recognize this as a task that requires an API call. If the user asks about standings, the agent might query the appropriate table in the database. For text-based questions, it may call a search function over ingested data. The agent orchestrates this entire process, ensuring the LLM makes calls to the right resources dynamically.

Generative AI Tools and Context:This is a standard architecture for integrating multiple functionalities into a system where each query requires different actions. The core design in option B is efficient because it keeps the system modular and dynamic by leveraging tools rather than overloading the LLM with static information in a system prompt (like option D).

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A (RAG Architecture): While relevant, simply ingesting PDFs into a vector store only helps with text-based retrieval. It wouldn’t help with API lookups or table queries.

C (Conditional Logic with RAG/API/TABLE): Although this approach works, it relies heavily on manual text parsing and might introduce complexity when scaling the system.

D (System Prompt with Event Dates and Standings): Hardcoding dates and table information into a system prompt isn’t scalable. As the standings or events change, the system would need constant updating, making it inefficient.

By bundling multiple tools into a single agent-based system (as in option B), the Generative AI Engineer can best handle the diverse requirements of this system.

The task is to choose between LSH and HNSW for a vector database index, prioritizing semantic accuracy. The evaluation must assess how well each method retrieves semantically relevant results. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Compare the cosine similarities of the embeddings of returned results against those of a representative sample of test inputs

Cosine similarity measures semantic closeness between vectors, directly assessing retrieval accuracy in a vector database. Comparing returned results’ embeddings to test inputs’ embeddings evaluates how well LSH or HNSW preserves semantic relationships, aligning with the priority.

Databricks Reference:"Cosine similarity is a standard metric for evaluating vector search accuracy"("Databricks Vector Search Documentation," 2023).

Option B: Compare the Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) scores of returned results for a representative sample of test inputs

BLEU evaluates text generation (e.g., translations), not vector retrieval accuracy. It’s irrelevant for indexing performance.

Databricks Reference:"BLEU applies to generative tasks, not retrieval"("Generative AI Cookbook").

Option C: Compare the Recall-Oriented-Understudy for Gisting Evaluation (ROUGE) scores of returned results for a representative sample of test inputs

ROUGE is for summarization evaluation, not vector search. It doesn’t measure semantic accuracy in retrieval.

Databricks Reference:"ROUGE is unsuited for vector database evaluation"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

Option D: Compare the Levenshtein distances of returned results against a representative sample of test inputs

Levenshtein distance measures string edit distance, not semantic similarity in embeddings. It’s inappropriate for vector-based retrieval.

Databricks Reference: No specific support for Levenshtein in vector search contexts.

Conclusion: Option A (cosine similarity) is the correct approach, directly evaluating semantic accuracy in vector retrieval, as recommended by Databricks for Vector Search assessments.

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.

In modern agentic frameworks like LangGraph or LangChain, the standard workflow for creating an autonomous tool-calling agent follows a specific sequence. First, tools must be defined (often as Python functions with clear docstrings, which the LLM uses to understand the tool's purpose). Second, the agent logic is defined, which specifies how the LLM should think. Third, the agent is initialized using a logic pattern likeReAct(Reason + Act). The ReAct framework is essential here because it enables the "orchestrator" loop: the LLM receives a prompt, generates a "Thought" about which tool to use, generates an "Action" to call that tool, receives an "Observation" (the tool's output), and repeats until it can provide a final answer. Loading tools into "separate agents" (C) or defining tools "inside" agents (D) are non-standard patterns that add unnecessary complexity and do not align with the centralized orchestration model required for LangGraph.

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.

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.

The task requires an open generative AI model for a transcription (speech-to-text) task where speed is essential. Let’s assess the options based on their suitability for transcription and performance characteristics, referencing Databricks’ approach to model selection.

Option A: Llama-2-70b-chat-hf

Llama-2 is a text-based LLM optimized for chat and text generation, not speech-to-text. It lacks transcription capabilities.

Databricks Reference:"Llama models are designed for natural language generation, not audio processing"("Databricks Model Catalog").

Option B: MPT-30B-Instruct

MPT-30B is another text-based LLM focused on instruction-following and text generation, not transcription. It’s irrelevant for speech-to-text tasks.

Databricks Reference: No specific mention, but MPT is categorized under text LLMs in Databricks’ ecosystem, not audio models.

Option C: DBRX

DBRX, developed by Databricks, is a powerful text-based LLM for general-purpose generation. It doesn’t natively support speech-to-text and isn’t optimized for transcription.

Databricks Reference:"DBRX excels at text generation and reasoning tasks"("Introducing DBRX," 2023)—no mention of audio capabilities.

Option D: whisper-large-v3 (1.6B)

Whisper, developed by OpenAI, is an open-source model specifically designed for speech-to-text transcription. The “large-v3” variant (1.6 billion parameters) balances accuracy and efficiency, with optimizations for speed via quantization or deployment on GPUs—key for the application’s requirements.

Databricks Reference:"For audio transcription, models like Whisper are recommended for their speed and accuracy"("Generative AI Cookbook," 2023). Databricks supports Whisper integration in its MLflow or Lakehouse workflows.

Conclusion: OnlyD. whisper-large-v3is a speech-to-text model, making it the sole suitable choice. Its design prioritizes transcription, and its efficiency (e.g., via optimized inference) meets the speed requirement, aligning with Databricks’ model deployment best practices.

 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.

The task at hand is to improve the LLM’s ability to generate poem-like article summaries with the desired tone and style. Using aneutralizerto 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 aspecific 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) isnotan effective method for achieving the goal of generating stylized poetic summaries.

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.

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.

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 system answers questions on unfolding news topics using articles and social media, with a concern about toxic outputs from toxic inputs. A guardrail must limit toxicity in the LLM’s responses. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Use only approved social media and news accounts to prevent unexpected toxic data from getting to the LLM

Curating input sources (e.g., verified accounts) reduces exposure to toxic content at the data ingestion stage, directly limiting toxic outputs. This is a proactive guardrail aligned with data quality control.

Databricks Reference:"Control input data quality to mitigate unwanted LLM behavior, such as toxicity"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks," 2023).

Option B: Implement rate limiting

Rate limiting controls request frequency, not content quality. It prevents overload but doesn’t address toxicity in social media inputs or outputs.

Databricks Reference: Rate limiting is for performance, not safety:"Use rate limits to manage compute load"("Generative AI Cookbook").

Option C: Reduce the amount of context items the system will include in consideration for its response

Reducing context might limit exposure to some toxic items but risks losing relevant information, and it doesn’t specifically target toxicity. It’s an indirect, imprecise fix.

Databricks Reference: Context reduction is for efficiency, not safety:"Adjust context size based on performance needs"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Option D: Log all LLM system responses and perform a batch toxicity analysis monthly

Logging and analyzing responses is reactive, identifying toxicity after it occurs rather than preventing it. Monthly analysis doesn’t limit real-time toxic outputs.

Databricks Reference: Monitoring is for auditing, not prevention:"Log outputs for post-hoc analysis, but use input filters for safety"("Building LLM-Powered Applications").

Conclusion: Option A is the most effective guardrail, proactively filtering toxic inputs from unverified sources, which aligns with Databricks’ emphasis on data quality as a primary safety mechanism for LLM systems.

In a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system, the key to providing relevant responses lies in the quality of the retrieved context. Here’s why option A is the most appropriate solution:

Context Relevance:The RAG model generates answers based on retrieved documents or context. If the retrieved information is about an irrelevant product, it suggests that the retrieval step is failing to select the right context. The Generative AI Engineer must first assess the quality of what is being retrieved and ensure it is pertinent to the query.

Vector Search and Embedding Similarity:RAG typically uses vector search for retrieval, where embeddings of the query are matched against embeddings of product descriptions. Assessing thesemantic similarity searchprocess ensures that the closest matches are actually relevant to the query.

Fine-tuning the Retrieval Process:By improving theretrieval quality, such as tuning the embeddings or adjusting the retrieval strategy, the system can return more accurate and relevant product information.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

B (Caching FAQs): Caching can speed up responses for frequently asked questions but won’t improve the relevance of the retrieved content for less frequent or new queries.

C (Use a Different LLM): Changing the LLM only affects the generation step, not the retrieval process, which is the core issue here.

D (Different Semantic Search Algorithm): This could help, but the first step is to evaluate the current retrieval context before replacing the search algorithm.

Therefore, improving and assessing the quality of the retrieved context (option A) is the first step to fixing the issue of irrelevant product information.

Building a basic LLM-enabled chat application with conversational capabilities, knowledge retrieval, and contextual memory requires specific components that work together to process queries, maintain context, and retrieve relevant information. Databricks’ Generative AI Engineer documentation outlines key components for such systems, particularly in the context of frameworks like LangChain or Databricks’ MosaicML integrations. Let’s evaluate the required components:

Understanding the Requirements:

Conversational capabilities: The app must generate natural, coherent responses.

Knowledge retrieval: It must access external or domain-specific knowledge.

Contextual memory: It must remember prior interactions in the conversation.

Databricks Reference:"A typical LLM chat application includes a memory component to track conversation history and a retrieval mechanism to incorporate external knowledge"("Databricks Generative AI Cookbook," 2023).

Evaluating the Options:

A. (Q): This appears incomplete or unclear (possibly a typo). Without further context, it’s not a valid component.

B. Vector Stores: These store embeddings of documents or knowledge bases, enabling semantic search and retrieval of relevant information for the LLM. This is critical for knowledge retrieval in a chat application.

Databricks Reference:"Vector stores, such as those integrated with Databricks’ Lakehouse, enable efficient retrieval of contextual data for LLMs"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks").

C. Conversation Buffer Memory: This component stores the conversation history, allowing the LLM to maintain context across multiple turns. It’s essential for contextual memory.

Databricks Reference:"Conversation Buffer Memory tracks prior user inputs and LLM outputs, ensuring context-aware responses"("Generative AI Engineer Guide").

D. External tools: These (e.g., APIs or calculators) enhance functionality but aren’t required for abasicchat app with the specified capabilities.

E. Chat loaders: These might refer to data loaders for chat logs, but they’re not a core chain component for conversational functionality or memory.

F. React Components: These relate to front-end UI development, not the LLM chain’s backend functionality.

Selecting the Two Required Components:

Forknowledge retrieval, Vector Stores (B) are necessary to fetch relevant external data, a cornerstone of Databricks’ RAG-based chat systems.

Forcontextual memory, Conversation Buffer Memory (C) is required to maintain conversation history, ensuring coherent and context-aware responses.

While an LLM itself is implied as the core generator, the question asks for chain components beyond the model, making B and C the minimal yet sufficient pair for a basic application.

Conclusion: The two required chain components areB. Vector StoresandC. Conversation Buffer Memory, as they directly address knowledge retrieval and contextual memory, respectively, aligning with Databricks’ documented best practices for LLM-enabled chat applications.