Databricks Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Dumps Updated Dec 21, 2025 WIith 63 Questions [Q25-Q45]

Rate this post

Databricks Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Dumps Updated Dec 21, 2025 WIith 63 Questions

View All Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Actual Free Exam Questions Dec 21, 2025 Updated

NEW QUESTION 25
A Generative Al Engineer is building an LLM-based application that has an important transcription (speech-to-text) task. Speed is essential for the success of the application Which open Generative Al models should be used?

L!ama-2-70b-chat-hf

MPT-30B-lnstruct

DBRX

whisper-large-v3 (1.6B)

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.

NEW QUESTION 26
A Generative Al Engineer has successfully ingested unstructured documents and chunked them by document sections. They would like to store the chunks in a Vector Search index. The current format of the dataframe has two columns: (i) original document file name (ii) an array of text chunks for each document.
What is the most performant way to store this dataframe?

Split the data into train and test set, create a unique identifier for each document, then save to a Delta table

Flatten the dataframe to one chunk per row, create a unique identifier for each row, and save to a Delta table

First create a unique identifier for each document, then save to a Delta table

Store each chunk as an independent JSON file in Unity Catalog Volume. For each JSON file, the key is the document section name and the value is the array of text chunks for that section

NEW QUESTION 27
A Generative AI Engineer is building a RAG application that will rely on context retrieved from source documents that are currently in PDF format. These PDFs can contain both text and images. They want to develop a solution using the least amount of lines of code.
Which Python package should be used to extract the text from the source documents?

flask

beautifulsoup

unstructured

numpy

NEW QUESTION 28
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 29
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

NEW QUESTION 30
Which indicator should be considered to evaluate the safety of the LLM outputs when qualitatively assessing LLM responses for a translation use case?

The ability to generate responses in code

The similarity to the previous language

The latency of the response and the length of text generated

The accuracy and relevance of the responses

NEW QUESTION 31
A Generative Al Engineer interfaces with an LLM with prompt/response behavior that has been trained on customer calls inquiring about product availability. The LLM is designed to output “In Stock” if the product is available or only the term “Out of Stock” if not.
Which prompt will work to allow the engineer to respond to call classification labels correctly?

Respond with “In Stock” if the customer asks for a product.

You will be given a customer call transcript where the customer asks about product availability. The outputs are either “In Stock” or “Out of Stock”. Format the output in JSON, for example: {“call_id”:
“123”, “label”: “In Stock”}.

Respond with “Out of Stock” if the customer asks for a product.

You will be given a customer call transcript where the customer inquires about product availability.Respond with “In Stock” if the product is available or “Out of Stock” if not.

NEW QUESTION 32
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 Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) scores of returned results for 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 Levenshtein distances of returned results against a representative sample of test inputs

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.

NEW QUESTION 33
A Generative Al Engineer is tasked with developing an application that is based on an open source large language model (LLM). They need a foundation LLM with a large context window.
Which model fits this need?

DistilBERT

MPT-30B

Llama2-70B

DBRX

NEW QUESTION 34
A Generative Al Engineer has developed an LLM application to answer questions about internal company policies. The Generative AI Engineer must ensure that the application doesn’t hallucinate or leak confidential data.
Which approach should NOT be used to mitigate hallucination or confidential data leakage?

Add guardrails to filter outputs from the LLM before it is shown to the user

Fine-tune the model on your data, hoping it will learn what is appropriate and not

Limit the data available based on the user’s access level

Use a strong system prompt to ensure the model aligns with your needs.

NEW QUESTION 35
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 36
A Generative AI Engineer has been asked to build an LLM-based question-answering application. The application should take into account new documents that are frequently published. The engineer wants to build this application with the least cost and least development effort and have it operate at the lowest cost possible.
Which combination of chaining components and configuration meets these requirements?

For the application a prompt, a retriever, and an LLM are required. The retriever output is inserted into the prompt which is given to the LLM to generate answers.

The LLM needs to be frequently with the new documents in order to provide most up-to-date answers.

For the question-answering application, prompt engineering and an LLM are required to generate answers.

For the application a prompt, an agent and a fine-tuned LLM are required. The agent is used by the LLM to retrieve relevant content that is inserted into the prompt which is given to the LLM to generate answers.

NEW QUESTION 37
A small and cost-conscious startup in the cancer research field wants to build a RAG application using Foundation Model APIs.
Which strategy would allow the startup to build a good-quality RAG application while being cost-conscious and able to cater to customer needs?

Limit the number of relevant documents available for the RAG application to retrieve from

Pick a smaller LLM that is domain-specific

Limit the number of queries a customer can send per day

Use the largest LLM possible because that gives the best performance for any general queries

NEW QUESTION 38
A Generative AI Engineer is tasked with deploying an application that takes advantage of a custom MLflow Pyfunc model to return some interim results.
How should they configure the endpoint to pass the secrets and credentials?

Use spark.conf.set ()

Pass variables using the Databricks Feature Store API

Add credentials using environment variables

Pass the secrets in plain text

NEW QUESTION 39
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.)

call_cust_history

maintenance_schedule

call_rep_history

call_detail

transcript Volume

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.

NEW QUESTION 40
A Generative AI Engineer is designing a chatbot for a gaming company that aims to engage users on its platform while its users play online video games.
Which metric would help them increase user engagement and retention for their platform?

Randomness

Diversity of responses

Lack of relevance

Repetition of responses

NEW QUESTION 41
A Generative Al Engineer is helping a cinema extend its website’s chat bot to be able to respond to questions about specific showtimes for movies currently playing at their local theater. They already have the location of the user provided by location services to their agent, and a Delta table which is continually updated with the latest showtime information by location. They want to implement this new capability In their RAG application.
Which option will do this with the least effort and in the most performant way?

Create a Feature Serving Endpoint from a FeatureSpec that references an online store synced from the Delta table. Query the Feature Serving Endpoint as part of the agent logic / tool implementation.

Query the Delta table directly via a SQL query constructed from the user’s input using a text-to-SQL LLM in the agent logic / tool

implementation. Write the Delta table contents to a text column.then embed those texts using an embedding model and store these in the vector index Look up the information based on the embedding as part of the agent logic / tool implementation.

Set up a task in Databricks Workflows to write the information in the Delta table periodically to an external database such as MySQL and query the information from there as part of the agent logic / tool implementation.

The task is to extend a cinema chatbot to provide movie showtime information using a RAG application, leveraging user location and a continuously updated Delta table, with minimal effort and high performance.
Let’s evaluate the options.
* Option A: Create a Feature Serving Endpoint from a FeatureSpec that references an online store synced from the Delta table. Query the Feature Serving Endpoint as part of the agent logic / tool implementation
* Databricks Feature Serving provides low-latency access to real-time data from Delta tables via an online store. Syncing the Delta table to a Feature Serving Endpoint allows the chatbot to query showtimes efficiently, integrating seamlessly into the RAG agent’stool logic. This leverages Databricks’ native infrastructure, minimizing effort and ensuring performance.
* Databricks Reference:”Feature Serving Endpoints provide real-time access to Delta table data with low latency, ideal for production systems”(“Databricks Feature Engineering Guide,” 2023).
* Option B: Query the Delta table directly via a SQL query constructed from the user’s input using a text-to-SQL LLM in the agent logic / tool
* Using a text-to-SQL LLM to generate queries adds complexity (e.g., ensuring accurate SQL generation) and latency (LLM inference + SQL execution). While feasible, it’s less performant and requires more effort than a pre-built serving solution.
* Databricks Reference:”Direct SQL queries are flexible but may introduce overhead in real-time applications”(“Building LLM Applications with Databricks”).
* Option C: Write the Delta table contents to a text column, then embed those texts using an embedding model and store these in the vector index. Look up the information based on the embedding as part of the agent logic / tool implementation
* Converting structured Delta table data (e.g., showtimes) into text, embedding it, and using vector search is inefficient for structured lookups. It’s effort-intensive (preprocessing, embedding) and less precise than direct queries, undermining performance.
* Databricks Reference:”Vector search excels for unstructured data, not structured tabular lookups”(“Databricks Vector Search Documentation”).
* Option D: Set up a task in Databricks Workflows to write the information in the Delta table periodically to an external database such as MySQL and query the information from there as part of the agent logic / tool implementation
* Exporting to an external database (e.g., MySQL) adds setup effort (workflow, external DB management) and latency (periodic updates vs. real-time). It’s less performant and more complex than using Databricks’ native tools.
* Databricks Reference:”Avoid external systems when Delta tables provide real-time data natively”(“Databricks Workflows Guide”).
Conclusion: Option A minimizes effort by using Databricks Feature Serving for real-time, low-latency access to the Delta table, ensuring high performance in a production-ready RAG chatbot.

NEW QUESTION 42
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 43
A Generative AI Engineer is building a RAG application that will rely on context retrieved from source documents that are currently in PDF format. These PDFs can contain both text and images. They want to develop a solution using the least amount of lines of code.
Which Python package should be used to extract the text from the source documents?

flask

beautifulsoup

unstructured

numpy

NEW QUESTION 44
A Generative Al Engineer is building a RAG application that answers questions about internal documents for the company SnoPen AI.
The source documents may contain a significant amount of irrelevant content, such as advertisements, sports news, or entertainment news, or content about other companies.
Which approach is advisable when building a RAG application to achieve this goal of filtering irrelevant information?

Keep all articles because the RAG application needs to understand non-company content to avoid answering questions about them.

Include in the system prompt that any information it sees will be about SnoPenAI, even if no data filtering is performed.

Include in the system prompt that the application is not supposed to answer any questions unrelated to SnoPen Al.

Consolidate all SnoPen AI related documents into a single chunk in the vector database.

NEW QUESTION 45
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?