[Q40-Q63] 100% Passing Guarantee – Brilliant Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Exam Questions PDF [Aug-2026]

NEW QUESTION 40
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?

NEW QUESTION 41
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.)

Use a smaller embedding model to generate

Reduce the maximum output tokens of the new model

Decrease the chunk size of embedded documents

Reduce the number of records retrieved from the vector database

Retrain the response generating model using ALiBi

NEW QUESTION 42
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?

Dolly 1.5B

OpenAI GPT-4

BGE-large

Llama2-70B

NEW QUESTION 43
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?

context length 514; smallest model is 0.44GB and embedding dimension 768

context length 2048: smallest model is 11GB and embedding dimension 2560

context length 32768: smallest model is 14GB and embedding dimension 4096

context length 512: smallest model is 0.13GB and embedding dimension 384

NEW QUESTION 44
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?

Log the model using MLflow during training, directly register the model to Unity Catalog using the MLflow API, and start a serving endpoint

Save the model along with its dependencies in a local directory, build the Docker image, and run the Docker container

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

Wrap the LLM’s prediction function into a Flask application and serve using Gunicorn

NEW QUESTION 45
A Generative Al Engineer has built an LLM-based system that will automatically translate user text between two languages. They now want to benchmark multiple LLM’s on this task and pick the best one. They have an evaluation set with known high quality translation examples. They want to evaluate each LLM using the evaluation set with a performant metric.
Which metric should they choose for this evaluation?

ROUGE metric

BLEU metric

NDCG metric

RECALL metric

NEW QUESTION 46
A Generative AI Engineer is experimenting with using parameters to configure an agent in Mosaic Agent Framework. However, they are struggling to get the agent to respond with relevant information with this configuration:
config = {“prompt_template”: “You are a trivia bot. Generate a question based on the user’s input: {user_input}”, “input_vars”: [“user_input”], “parameters”: {“temperature”: 0.01, “max_tokens”: 500}} Which error is causing the problem?

The prompt does not parse the user’s input vars

The prompt does not set the retriever schema

The prompt does not list available agents for the LLM to call

The prompt is not wrapped in ChatModel

NEW QUESTION 47
A Generative Al Engineer is developing a RAG system for their company to perform internal document Q&A for structured HR policies, but the answers returned are frequently incomplete and unstructured It seems that the retriever is not returning all relevant context The Generative Al Engineer has experimented with different embedding and response generating LLMs but that did not improve results.
Which TWO options could be used to improve the response quality?
Choose 2 answers

Add the section header as a prefix to chunks

Increase the document chunk size

Split the document by sentence

Use a larger embedding model

Fine tune the response generation model

The problem describes a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for HR policy Q&A where responses are incomplete and unstructured due to the retriever failing to return sufficient context. The engineer has already tried different embedding and response-generating LLMs without success, suggesting the issue lies in the retrieval process-specifically, how documents are chunked and indexed. Let’s evaluate the options.
* Option A: Add the section header as a prefix to chunks
* Adding section headers provides additional context to each chunk, helping the retriever understand the chunk’s relevance within the document structure (e.g., “Leave Policy: Annual Leave” vs. just “Annual Leave”). This can improve retrieval precision for structured HR policies.
* Databricks Reference:”Metadata, such as section headers, can be appended to chunks to enhance retrieval accuracy in RAG systems”(“Databricks Generative AI Cookbook,” 2023).
* Option B: Increase the document chunk size
* Larger chunks include more context per retrieval, reducing the chance of missing relevant information split across smaller chunks. For structured HR policies, this can ensure entire sections or rules are retrieved together.
* Databricks Reference:”Increasing chunk size can improve context completeness, though it may trade off with retrieval specificity”(“Building LLM Applications with Databricks”).
* Option C: Split the document by sentence
* Splitting by sentence creates very small chunks, which could exacerbate the problem by fragmenting context further. This is likely why the current system fails-it retrieves incomplete snippets rather than cohesive policy sections.
* Databricks Reference: No specific extract opposes this, but the emphasis on context completeness in RAG suggests smaller chunks worsen incomplete responses.
* Option D: Use a larger embedding model
* A larger embedding model might improve vector quality, but the question states that experimenting with different embedding models didn’t help. This suggests the issue isn’t embedding quality but rather chunking/retrieval strategy.
* Databricks Reference: Embedding models are critical, but not the focus when retrieval context is the bottleneck.
* Option E: Fine tune the response generation model
* Fine-tuning the LLM could improve response coherence, but if the retriever doesn’t provide complete context, the LLM can’t generate full answers. The root issue is retrieval, not generation.
* Databricks Reference: Fine-tuning is recommended for domain-specific generation, not retrieval fixes (“Generative AI Engineer Guide”).
Conclusion: Options A and B address the retrieval issue directly by enhancing chunk context-either through metadata (A) or size (B)-aligning with Databricks’ RAG optimization strategies. C would worsen the problem, while D and E don’t target the root cause given prior experimentation.

NEW QUESTION 48
A Generative Al Engineer has created a RAG application to look up answers to questions about a series of fantasy novels that are being asked on the author’s web forum. The fantasy novel texts are chunked and embedded into a vector store with metadata (page number, chapter number, book title), retrieved with the user’s query, and provided to an LLM for response generation. The Generative AI Engineer used their intuition to pick the chunking strategy and associated configurations but now wants to more methodically choose the best values.
Which TWO strategies should the Generative AI Engineer take to optimize their chunking strategy and parameters? (Choose two.)

Add a classifier for user queries that predicts which book will best contain the answer. Use this to filter retrieval.

Create an LLM-as-a-judge metric to evaluate how well previous questions are answered by the most appropriate chunk. Optimize the chunking parameters based upon the values of the metric.

Change embedding models and compare performance.

Pass known questions and best answers to an LLM and instruct the LLM to provide the best token count. Use a summary statistic (mean, median, etc.) of the best token counts to choose chunk size.

Choose an appropriate evaluation metric (such as recall or NDCG) and experiment with changes in the chunking strategy, such as splitting chunks by paragraphs or chapters.
Choose the strategy that gives the best performance metric.

NEW QUESTION 49
A Generative Al Engineer is using an LLM to classify species of edible mushrooms based on text descriptions of certain features. The model is returning accurate responses in testing and the Generative Al Engineer is confident they have the correct list of possible labels, but the output frequently contains additional reasoning in the answer when the Generative Al Engineer only wants to return the label with no additional text.
Which action should they take to elicit the desired behavior from this LLM?

Use few snot prompting to instruct the model on expected output format

Use zero shot prompting to instruct the model on expected output format

Use zero shot chain-of-thought prompting to prevent a verbose output format

Use a system prompt to instruct the model to be succinct in its answer

The LLM classifies mushroom species accurately but includes unwanted reasoning text, and the engineer wants only the label. Let’s assess how to control output format effectively.
* Option A: Use few shot prompting to instruct the model on expected output format
* Few-shot prompting provides examples (e.g., input: description, output: label). It can work but requires crafting multiple examples, which is effort-intensive and less direct than a clear instruction.
* Databricks Reference:”Few-shot prompting guides LLMs via examples, effective for format control but requires careful design”(“Generative AI Cookbook”).
* Option B: Use zero shot prompting to instruct the model on expected output format
* Zero-shot prompting relies on a single instruction (e.g., “Return only the label”) without examples. It’s simpler than few-shot but may not consistently enforce succinctness if the LLM’s default behavior is verbose.
* Databricks Reference:”Zero-shot prompting can specify output but may lack precision without examples”(“Building LLM Applications with Databricks”).
* Option C: Use zero shot chain-of-thought prompting to prevent a verbose output format
* Chain-of-Thought (CoT) encourages step-by-step reasoning, which increases verbosity-opposite to the desired outcome. This contradicts the goal of label-only output.
* Databricks Reference:”CoT prompting enhances reasoning but often results in detailed responses”(“Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide”).
* Option D: Use a system prompt to instruct the model to be succinct in its answer
* A system prompt (e.g., “Respond with only the species label, no additional text”) sets a global instruction for the LLM’s behavior. It’s direct, reusable, and effective for controlling output style across queries.
* Databricks Reference:”System prompts define LLM behavior consistently, ideal for enforcing concise outputs”(“Generative AI Cookbook,” 2023).
Conclusion: Option D is the most effective and straightforward action, using a system prompt to enforce succinct, label-only responses, aligning with Databricks’ best practices for output control.

NEW QUESTION 50
A Generative Al Engineer needs to design an LLM pipeline to conduct multi-stage reasoning that leverages external tools. To be effective at this, the LLM will need to plan and adapt actions while performing complex reasoning tasks.
Which approach will do this?

Tram the LLM to generate a single, comprehensive response without interacting with any external tools, relying solely on its pre-trained knowledge.

Implement a framework like ReAct which allows the LLM to generate reasoning traces and perform task-specific actions that leverage external tools if necessary.

Encourage the LLM to make multiple API calls in sequence without planning or structuring the calls, allowing the LLM to decide when and how to use external tools spontaneously.

Use a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting technique to guide the LLM through a series of reasoning steps, then manually input the results from external tools for the final answer.

The task requires an LLM pipeline for multi-stage reasoning with external tools, necessitating planning, adaptability, and complex reasoning. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks’ recommendations for advanced LLM workflows.
* Option A: Train the LLM to generate a single, comprehensive response without interacting with any external tools, relying solely on its pre-trained knowledge
* This approach limits the LLM to its static knowledge base, excluding external tools and multi- stage reasoning. It can’t adapt or plan actions dynamically, failing the requirements.
* Databricks Reference:”External tools enhance LLM capabilities beyond pre-trained knowledge” (“Building LLM Applications with Databricks,” 2023).
* Option B: Implement a framework like ReAct which allows the LLM to generate reasoning traces and perform task-specific actions that leverage external tools if necessary
* ReAct (Reasoning + Acting) combines reasoning traces (step-by-step logic) with actions (e.g., tool calls), enabling the LLM to plan, adapt, and execute complex tasks iteratively. This meets all requirements: multi-stage reasoning, tool use, and adaptability.
* Databricks Reference:”Frameworks like ReAct enable LLMs to interleave reasoning and external tool interactions for complex problem-solving”(“Generative AI Cookbook,” 2023).
* Option C: Encourage the LLM to make multiple API calls in sequence without planning or structuring the calls, allowing the LLM to decide when and how to use external tools spontaneously
* Unstructured, spontaneous API calls lack planning and may lead to inefficient or incorrect tool usage. This doesn’t ensure effective multi-stage reasoning or adaptability.
* Databricks Reference: Structured frameworks are preferred:”Ad-hoc tool calls can reduce reliability in complex tasks”(“Building LLM-Powered Applications”).
* Option D: Use a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting technique to guide the LLM through a series of reasoning steps, then manually input the results from external tools for the final answer
* CoT improves reasoning but relies on manual tool interaction, breaking automation and adaptability. It’s not a scalable pipeline solution.
* Databricks Reference:”Manual intervention is impractical for production LLM pipelines” (“Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide”).
Conclusion: Option B (ReAct) is the best approach, as it integrates reasoning and tool use in a structured, adaptive framework, aligning with Databricks’ guidance for complex LLM workflows.

NEW QUESTION 51
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?

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.

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”}

You will receive customer emails and need to extract date, sender email, and order ID. Return the extracted information in a human-readable format.

You will receive customer emails and need to extract date, sender email, and order ID. Return the extracted information in JSON format.

NEW QUESTION 52
A Generative AI Engineer received the following business requirements for an external chatbot.
The chatbot needs to know what types of questions the user asks and routes to appropriate models to answer the questions. For example, the user might ask about upcoming event details. Another user might ask about purchasing tickets for a particular event.
What is an ideal workflow for such a chatbot?

The chatbot should only look at previous event information

There should be two different chatbots handling different types of user queries.

The chatbot should be implemented as a multi-step LLM workflow. First, identify the type of question asked, then route the question to the appropriate model. If it’s an upcoming event question, send the query to a text-to-SQL model. If it’s about ticket purchasing, the customer should be redirected to a payment platform.

The chatbot should only process payments

NEW QUESTION 53
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. The match 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 the employee profiles and project 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 A suggests 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 B involves 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 C suggests 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 D is 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 leveraging vector embeddings and similarity search techniques, both of which are fundamental tools in Generative AI engineering for handling unstructured text.
Technical Reference:
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 like FAISS or Milvus allow 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 in Generative AI, such as vector embeddings and semantic search.

NEW QUESTION 54
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?

DatabrickslQ

Foundation Model APIs

Feature Serving

AutoML

NEW QUESTION 55
An AI developer team wants to fine-tune an open-weight model to have exceptional performance on a code generation use case. They are trying to choose the best model to start with. They want to minimize model hosting costs and are using Hugging Face model cards and spaces to explore models. Which TWO model attributes and metrics should the team focus on to make their selection?

Big Code Models Leaderboard

Number of model parameters

MTEB Leaderboard

Chatbot Arena Leaderboard

Number of model downloads last month

NEW QUESTION 56
Which TWO chain components are required for building a basic LLM-enabled chat application that includes conversational capabilities, knowledge retrieval, and contextual memory?

(Q)

Vector Stores

Conversation Buffer Memory

External tools

Chat loaders

React Components

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 a basicchat 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.

NEW QUESTION 57
A Generative Al Engineer is deciding between using LSH (Locality Sensitive Hashing) and HNSW (Hierarchical Navigable Small World) for indexing their vector database Their top priority is semantic accuracy Which approach should the Generative Al Engineer use to evaluate these two techniques?

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

Compare the Recall-Onented-Understudy for Gistmg Evaluation (ROUGE) scores of returned results for a representative sample of test inputs

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

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

NEW QUESTION 58
A Generative Al Engineer is ready to deploy an LLM application written using Foundation Model APIs. They want to follow security best practices for production scenarios Which authentication method should they choose?

Use an access token belonging to service principals

Use a frequently rotated access token belonging to either a workspace user or a service principal

Use OAuth machine-to-machine authentication

Use an access token belonging to any workspace user

The task is to deploy an LLM application using Foundation Model APIs in a production environment while adhering to security best practices. Authentication is critical for securing access to Databricks resources, such as the Foundation Model API. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks’ security guidelines for production scenarios.
Option A: Use an access token belonging to service principals
Service principals are non-human identities designed for automated workflows and applications in Databricks. Using an access token tied to a service principal ensures that the authentication is scoped to the application, follows least-privilege principles (via role-based access control), and avoids reliance on individual user credentials. This is a security best practice for production deployments.
Databricks Reference: “For production applications, use service principals with access tokens to authenticate securely, avoiding user-specific credentials” (“Databricks Security Best Practices,” 2023). Additionally, the “Foundation Model API Documentation” states: “Service principal tokens are recommended for programmatic access to Foundation Model APIs.” Option B: Use a frequently rotated access token belonging to either a workspace user or a service principal Frequent rotation enhances security by limiting token exposure, but tying the token to a workspace user introduces risks (e.g., user account changes, broader permissions). Including both user and service principal options dilutes the focus on application-specific security, making this less ideal than a service-principal-only approach. It also adds operational overhead without clear benefits over Option A.
Databricks Reference: “While token rotation is a good practice, service principals are preferred over user accounts for application authentication” (“Managing Tokens in Databricks,” 2023).
Option C: Use OAuth machine-to-machine authentication
OAuth M2M (e.g., client credentials flow) is a secure method for application-to-service communication, often using service principals under the hood. However, Databricks’ Foundation Model API primarily supports personal access tokens (PATs) or service principal tokens over full OAuth flows for simplicity in production setups. OAuth M2M adds complexity (e.g., managing refresh tokens) without a clear advantage in this context.
Databricks Reference: “OAuth is supported in Databricks, but service principal tokens are simpler and sufficient for most API-based workloads” (“Databricks Authentication Guide,” 2023).
Option D: Use an access token belonging to any workspace user
Using a user’s access token ties the application to an individual’s identity, violating security best practices. It risks exposure if the user leaves, changes roles, or has overly broad permissions, and it’s not scalable or auditable for production.
Databricks Reference: “Avoid using personal user tokens for production applications due to security and governance concerns” (“Databricks Security Best Practices,” 2023).
Conclusion: Option A is the best choice, as it uses a service principal’s access token, aligning with Databricks’ security best practices for production LLM applications. It ensures secure, application-specific authentication with minimal complexity, as explicitly recommended for Foundation Model API deployments.

NEW QUESTION 59
A Generative AI Engineer I using the code below to test setting up a vector store:

Assuming they intend to use Databricks managed embeddings with the default embedding model, what should be the next logical function call?

vsc.get_index()

vsc.create_delta_sync_index()

vsc.create_direct_access_index()

vsc.similarity_search()

NEW QUESTION 60
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?

Assess the quality of the retrieved context

Implement caching for frequently asked questions

Use a different LLM to improve the generated response

Use a different semantic similarity search algorithm

NEW QUESTION 61
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

NEW QUESTION 62
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?

Assess the quality of the retrieved context

Implement caching for frequently asked questions

Use a different LLM to improve the generated response

Use a different semantic similarity search algorithm

NEW QUESTION 63
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?

Input: Online chat logs; Output: Group the chat logs by users, followed by summarizing each user’s interactions

Input: Online chat logs; Output: Buttons that represent choices for booking details

Input: Customer reviews; Output: Classify review sentiment

Input: Online chat logs; Output: Cancellation options

Premium VCE Dumps

Premium VCE Dumps

[Q40-Q63] 100% Passing Guarantee – Brilliant Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Exam Questions PDF [Aug-2026]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply