Free Preparation Discussions
MENU
Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate Exam Questions
- Topic 1: Design Applications: The topic focuses on designing a prompt that elicits a specifically formatted response. It also focuses on selecting model tasks to accomplish a given business requirement. Lastly, the topic covers chain components for a desired model input and output.
- Topic 2: Data Preparation: Generative AI Engineers covers a chunking strategy for a given document structure and model constraints. The topic also focuses on filter extraneous content in source documents. Lastly, Generative AI Engineers also learn about extracting document content from provided source data and format.
- Topic 3: Application Development: In this topic, Generative AI Engineers learn about tools needed to extract data, Langchain/similar tools, and assessing responses to identify common issues. Moreover, the topic includes questions about adjusting an LLM's response, LLM guardrails, and the best LLM based on the attributes of the application.
- Topic 4: Assembling and Deploying Applications: In this topic, Generative AI Engineers get knowledge about coding a chain using a pyfunc mode, coding a simple chain using langchain, and coding a simple chain according to requirements. Additionally, the topic focuses on basic elements needed to create a RAG application. Lastly, the topic addresses sub-topics about registering the model to Unity Catalog using MLflow.
- Topic 5: Governance: Generative AI Engineers who take the exam get knowledge about masking techniques, guardrail techniques, and legal/licensing requirements in this topic.
- Topic 6: Evaluation and Monitoring: This topic is all about selecting an LLM choice and key metrics. Moreover, Generative AI Engineers learn about evaluating model performance. Lastly, the topic includes sub-topics about inference logging and usage of Databricks features.
Free Databricks Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate Exam Actual Questions
Note: Premium Questions for Databricks Certified Generative AI Engineer Associate were last updated On Sep. 03, 2026 (see below)
A Generative Al Engineer is building a production-ready LLM system which replies directly to customers. The solution makes use of the Foundation Model API via provisioned throughput. They are concerned that the LLM could potentially respond in a toxic or otherwise unsafe way. They also wish to perform this with the least amount of effort.
Which approach will do this?
The task is to prevent toxic or unsafe responses in an LLM system using the Foundation Model API with minimal effort. Let's assess the options.
Option A: Host Llama Guard on Foundation Model API and use it to detect unsafe responses
Llama Guard is a safety-focused model designed to detect toxic or unsafe content. Hosting it via the Foundation Model API (a Databricks service) integrates seamlessly with the existing system, requiring minimal setup (just deployment and a check step), and leverages provisioned throughput for performance.
Databricks Reference: 'Foundation Model API supports hosting safety models like Llama Guard to filter outputs efficiently' ('Foundation Model API Documentation,' 2023).
Option B: Add some LLM calls to their chain to detect unsafe content before returning text
Using additional LLM calls (e.g., prompting an LLM to classify toxicity) increases latency, complexity, and effort (crafting prompts, chaining logic), and lacks the specificity of a dedicated safety model.
Databricks Reference: 'Ad-hoc LLM checks are less efficient than purpose-built safety solutions' ('Building LLM Applications with Databricks').
Option C: Add a regex expression on inputs and outputs to detect unsafe responses
Regex can catch simple patterns (e.g., profanity) but fails for nuanced toxicity (e.g., sarcasm, context-dependent harm), requiring significant manual effort to maintain and update rules.
Databricks Reference: 'Regex-based filtering is limited for complex safety needs' ('Generative AI Cookbook').
Option D: Ask users to report unsafe responses
User reporting is reactive, not preventive, and places burden on users rather than the system. It doesn't limit unsafe outputs proactively and requires additional effort for feedback handling.
Databricks Reference: 'Proactive guardrails are preferred over user-driven monitoring' ('Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide').
Conclusion: Option A (Llama Guard on Foundation Model API) is the least-effort, most effective approach, leveraging Databricks' infrastructure for seamless safety integration.
A Generative AI Engineer is using LangGraph to define multiple tools in a single agentic application. They want to enable the main orchestrator LLM to decide on its own which tools are most appropriate to call for a given prompt. To do this, they must determine the general flow of the code. Which sequence will do this?
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 like ReAct (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.
A generative AI engineer is deploying an AI agent authored with MLflow's ChatAgent interface for a retail company's customer support system on Databricks. The agent must handle thousands of inquiries daily, and the engineer needs to track its performance and quality in real-time to ensure it meets service-level agreements. Which metrics are automatically captured by default and made available for monitoring when the agent is deployed using the Mosaic AI Agent Framework?
When deploying an agent via the Mosaic AI Agent Framework (which leverages Databricks Model Serving), operational metrics are captured automatically by default. These include system-level telemetry such as the number of requests per second (volume), the time taken for the model to respond (latency), and the rate of 4xx/5xx HTTP errors. These are essential for monitoring Service Level Agreements (SLAs). However, Quality metrics (B), such as correctness, groundedness, or adherence to custom guidelines, cannot be determined 'automatically' by the serving infrastructure because they require either human feedback or an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation (using Databricks Agent Evaluation). While Databricks makes it easy to generate quality metrics using the mlflow.evaluate API or the inference table, they are not 'default operational metrics' that appear without additional evaluation configuration.
A Generative AI Engineer has been reviewing issues with their company's LLM-based question-answering assistant and has determined that a technique called prompt chaining could help alleviate some performance concerns. However, to suggest this to their team, they have to clearly explain how it works and how it can benefit their question-answering assistant. Which explanation do they communicate to the team?
Prompt chaining is a fundamental design pattern in LLM application development used to handle complexity. Instead of sending a single, massive, and highly complex prompt to an LLM---which often results in reasoning errors or hallucinations---chaining breaks the logic into a sequence of smaller, targeted steps. For example, a legal assistant might first chain a step to 'identify the legal jurisdiction,' followed by a step to 'extract relevant statutes,' and finally a step to 'summarize the findings.' This modularity improves reliability because each prompt has a narrower focus, making it easier for the model to follow instructions accurately. While it may actually increase latency (contradicting B) and cost (contradicting D) due to multiple API calls, the primary engineering benefit is the significant boost in the quality and robustness of the output. It also allows for intermediate validation and error handling between steps, which is impossible in a single-call architecture.
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?
Problem Context: The goal is to parse emails to extract certain pieces of information and output this in a structured JSON format. Clarity and specificity in the prompt design will ensure higher accuracy in the LLM's responses.
Explanation of Options:
Option A: Provides a general guideline but lacks an example, which helps an LLM understand the exact format expected.
Option B: Includes a clear instruction and a specific example of the output format. Providing an example is crucial as it helps set the pattern and format in which the information should be structured, leading to more accurate results.
Option C: Does not specify that the output should be in JSON format, thus not meeting the requirement.
Option D: While it correctly asks for JSON format, it lacks an example that would guide the LLM on how to structure the JSON correctly.
Therefore, Option B is optimal as it not only specifies the required format but also illustrates it with an example, enhancing the likelihood of accurate extraction and formatting by the LLM.
- Select Question Types you want
- Set your Desired Pass Percentage
- Allocate Time (Hours : Minutes)
- Create Multiple Practice tests with Limited Questions
- Customer Support
Amanda Flores
13 days agoBarbara Parker
23 days agoRyan Rogers
1 month agoJoshua Cooper
2 months agoCrystal Wilson
3 months agoBrenda Lopez
3 months agoBetty Edwards
4 months agoPaul Davis
4 months agoWilliam Williams
4 months agoLaura Lee
4 months agoRonald Wilson
4 months agoDonna Baker
4 months agoAshley Murphy
4 months agoJason Anderson
4 months agoFabiola
5 months agoCecily
5 months agoKrystal
5 months agoLynelle
6 months agoMarylou
6 months agoAngella
6 months agoWillard
7 months agoGilberto
7 months agoInes
7 months agoJames
7 months agoGilbert
8 months agoColette
8 months agoTegan
8 months agoSylvia
8 months agoHubert
9 months agoCarlene
9 months agoTayna
9 months agoTitus
9 months agoGwenn
10 months agoKatie
10 months agoDaryl
10 months agoMalcolm
10 months agoMarlon
11 months agoWilbert
11 months agoKattie
11 months agoBritt
11 months agoNaomi
1 year agoLore
1 year agoPaul
1 year agoElinore
1 year agoBobbie
1 year agoShannon
1 year agoAhmad
1 year agoJoni
2 years agoEmogene
2 years agoElke
2 years agoToshia
2 years agoMatthew
2 years agoMari
2 years agoDeangelo
2 years agoVirgilio
2 years agoDewitt
2 years agoDesmond
2 years agoMy
2 years agoSherrell
2 years agoMila
2 years agoCarri
2 years agoAntonette
2 years agoOcie
2 years ago