At ValidExamDumps, we consistently monitor updates to the Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate exam questions by Databricks. Whenever our team identifies changes in the exam questions,exam objectives, exam focus areas or in exam requirements, We immediately update our exam questions for both PDF and online practice exams. This commitment ensures our customers always have access to the most current and accurate questions. By preparing with these actual questions, our customers can successfully pass the Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate exam on their first attempt without needing additional materials or study guides.
Other certification materials providers often include outdated or removed questions by Databricks in their Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate exam. These outdated questions lead to customers failing their Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate exam. In contrast, we ensure our questions bank includes only precise and up-to-date questions, guaranteeing their presence in your actual exam. Our main priority is your success in the Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate exam, not profiting from selling obsolete exam questions in PDF or Online Practice Test.
Generative AI Engineer at an electronics company just deployed a RAG application for customers to ask questions about products that the company carries. However, they received feedback that the RAG response often returns information about an irrelevant product.
What can the engineer do to improve the relevance of the RAG's response?
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 the semantic similarity search process ensures that the closest matches are actually relevant to the query.
Fine-tuning the Retrieval Process: By improving the retrieval 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.
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?
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 B best 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.
What is an effective method to preprocess prompts using custom code before sending them to an LLM?
The most effective way to preprocess prompts using custom code is to write a custom model, such as an MLflow 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. A PyFunc model 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.
A Generative AI Engineer is developing a chatbot designed to assist users with insurance-related queries. The chatbot is built on a large language model (LLM) and is conversational. However, to maintain the chatbot's focus and to comply with company policy, it must not provide responses to questions about politics. Instead, when presented with political inquiries, the chatbot should respond with a standard message:
''Sorry, I cannot answer that. I am a chatbot that can only answer questions around insurance.''
Which framework type should be implemented to solve this?
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.
A Generative Al Engineer is responsible for developing a chatbot to enable their company's internal HelpDesk Call Center team to more quickly find related tickets and provide resolution. While creating the GenAI application work breakdown tasks for this project, they realize they need to start planning which data sources (either Unity Catalog volume or Delta table) they could choose for this application. They have collected several candidate data sources for consideration:
call_rep_history: a Delta table with primary keys representative_id, call_id. This table is maintained to calculate representatives' call resolution from fields call_duration and call start_time.
transcript Volume: a Unity Catalog Volume of all recordings as a *.wav files, but also a text transcript as *.txt files.
call_cust_history: a Delta table with primary keys customer_id, cal1_id. This table is maintained to calculate how much internal customers use the HelpDesk to make sure that the charge back model is consistent with actual service use.
call_detail: a Delta table that includes a snapshot of all call details updated hourly. It includes root_cause and resolution fields, but those fields may be empty for calls that are still active.
maintenance_schedule -- a Delta table that includes a listing of both HelpDesk application outages as well as planned upcoming maintenance downtimes.
They need sources that could add context to best identify ticket root cause and resolution.
Which TWO sources do that? (Choose two.)
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.
