1z0-1127-25 Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

In RAG, "Groundedness" assesses whether the response is factually correct and supported by retrieved data, while "Answer Relevance" evaluates how well the response addresses the user’s query. Option A captures this distinction accurately. Option B is off—groundedness isn’t just contextual alignment, and relevance isn’t about syntax. Option C swaps the definitions. Option D misaligns—groundedness isn’t solely data integrity, and relevance isn’t lexical diversity. This distinction ensures RAG outputs are both true and pertinent.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely defines these under RAG evaluation metrics.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

“Top k” sampling selects from the k most probable tokens, based on their ranked position, while “Top p” (nucleus sampling) selects from tokens whose cumulative probability exceeds p, focusing on a dynamic probability mass—Option B is correct. Option A is false—they differ in selection, not penalties. Option C reverses definitions. Option D (frequency) is incorrect—both use probability, not frequency. This distinction affects diversity.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely contrasts Top k and Top p under sampling methods.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

T-Few fine-tuning (a Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning method) updates a small subset of the model’s weights, reducing computational cost and mitigating overfitting compared to Vanilla fine-tuning, which updates all weights. This makes Option C correct. Option A describes Vanilla fine-tuning, not T-Few. Option B is incomplete, as it omits the overfitting benefit. Option D is false, as T-Few typically reduces training time due to fewer updates. T-Few balances efficiency and performance.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely describes T-Few under fine-tuningoptions.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Few-shot prompting involves providing a few examples in the prompt to guide the LLM’s behavior, leveraging its in-context learning ability without requiring retraining or additional computational resources. This makes Option C correct. Option A is false, as few-shot prompting doesn’t expand the dataset. Option B overstates the case, as inference still requires resources. Option D is incorrect, as latency isn’t significantly affected by few-shot prompting.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely highlights few-shot prompting in sections on efficient customization.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Prompt 1: Shows intermediate steps (3 × 4 = 12, then 12 ÷ 4 = 3 sets, $200 ÷ $50 = 4)—Chain-of-Thought.

Prompt 2: Steps back to a simpler problem before the full one—Step-Back.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely defines these under prompting strategies.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Soft prompting adds trainable parameters (soft prompts) to adapt an LLM without retraining its core weights, ideal for low-resource customization without task-specific data. This makes Option C correct. Option A suits fine-tuning. Option B may require more than soft prompting (e.g., domain fine-tuning). Option D describes pretraining, not soft prompting. Soft prompting is efficient for specific adaptations.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely discusses soft prompting under PEFT methods.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Cosine distance measures the angle between two vectors, where 0 means the vectors point in the same direction (cosine similarity = 1), indicating high similarity in embeddings’ semantic content—Option C is correct. Option A (dissimilar) aligns with a distance of 1. Option B is vague—directional similarity matters. Option D (magnitude) isn’t relevant—cosine ignores magnitude. This is key for semantic comparison.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely explains cosine distance under vector database metrics.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

In OCI, unit hours typically equal actual hours of cluster activity unless specified otherwise (e.g., per GPU scaling). For 10 hours of activity, it’s 10 hours × 1 unit/hour = 10 unit hours, but options suggest a multiplier (common in cloud pricing). Assuming a standard 2-unit/hour rate (e.g., for GPU clusters), it’s 10 × 2 = 20 unit hours—Option C fits best. Options A, B, and D imply inconsistent rates (2.5, 4, 3).

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely specifies unit hour rates under DedicatedAI Cluster pricing.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Cohere Embed v3, as an advanced embedding model, is designed with improved performance for retrieval tasks, enhancing RAG systems by generating more accurate, contextually rich embeddings. This makes Option B correct. Option A (tokenization) isn’t a primary focus—embedding quality is. Option C (syntactic clustering) is too narrow—semantics drives improvement. Option D (translation) isn’t an embedding model’s role. v3 boosts RAG effectiveness.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely highlights Embed v3 under supported models or RAG enhancements.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Vector databases store data as high-dimensional vectors (embeddings) and are optimized for similarity searches using metrics like cosine distance, unlike relational databases, which use tabular rows and columns for structured data. This makes Option D correct. Options A and C describerelational databases, not vector ones. Option B is false, as vector databases are specifically designed for high-dimensional spaces. Vector databases excel in semantic search and LLM integration.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely contrasts vector and relational databases under data storage.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

In NLP (e.g., transformers), encoders convert input text into a vector representation (encoding meaning), while decoders generate text from such vectors (e.g., in translation or generation). This makes Option C correct. Option A is false—decoders generate text. Option B reverses roles—encoders don’t predict next words, and decoders don’t encode. Option D oversimplifies—encoders handle text, not just numbers. This is the foundation of seq2seq models.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely explains encoder-decoder roles under model architecture.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Vanilla fine-tuning updates all model parameters, and with small datasets, it can overfit—memorizing the data rather than generalizing—leading to poor performance on unseen data. Option A is correct. Option B (underfitting) is unlikely with full updates—overfitting is the risk. Option C (data leakage) depends on data handling, not size. Option D (model drift) relates to deployment shifts, not training. Small datasets exacerbate overfitting in Vanilla fine-tuning.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely warns of overfitting under Vanilla fine-tuning limitations.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Vector databases store data as high-dimensional vectors, optimized for similarity searches (e.g., cosine distance), unlike relational databases’ tabular, row-column structure. This makes Option C correct. Option A and D describe relational databases. Option B is false—vector databases excel in high-dimensional spaces. Vector databases support semantic queries critical for LLMs.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely contrasts these under data storage options.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

LangSmith Evaluators assess LLM outputs for qualities like coherence (A), factual accuracy (C), and bias/toxicity (D), aiding development and debugging. Aligning code readability (B) pertains to software engineering, not LLM evaluation, making it the odd one out—Option B is correct as NOT a use case. Options A, C, and D align with LangSmith’s focus on text quality and ethics.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely lists LangSmith Evaluator use cases under evaluation tools.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Temperature adjusts the softmax distribution in decoding. Increasing it (e.g., to 2.0) flattens the curve, giving lower-probability words a better chance, thus increasing diversity—Option C is correct. Option A exaggerates—top words still have impact, just less dominance. Option B is backwards—decreasing temperature sharpens, not broadens. Option D is false—temperature directly alters distribution, not speed. This controls output creativity.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely reiterates temperature effects under decoding parameters.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Retrievers in LangChain fetch relevant information (e.g., documents, embeddings) from external knowledge bases (like vector stores) to provide context for LLM responses, especially in RAG setups. This makes Option B correct. Option A (training) is unrelated—Retrievers operate at inference. Option C (task breakdown) pertains to prompting techniques, not retrieval. Option D (pipeline combination) describes chains, not Retrievers specifically. Retrievers enhance context awareness.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely defines Retrievers under LangChain components.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

PEFT (e.g., LoRA, T-Few) updates a small subset of parameters (often new ones) using labeled, task-specific data, unlike classic fine-tuning, which updates all parameters—Option A is correct. Option B reverses PEFT’s efficiency. Option C (no modification) fits soft prompting, not all PEFT. Option D (all parameters) mimics classic fine-tuning. PEFT reduces resource demands.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely contrasts PEFT and fine-tuning under customization methods.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Fine-tuning is suitable when an LLM underperforms on a specific task and prompt engineering alone isn’t feasible due to large, task-specific data that can’t be efficiently included in prompts. This adjusts the model’s weights, making Option B correct. Option A suggests no customization is needed. Option C favors RAG for latest data, not fine-tuning. Option D is vague—fine-tuning requires data and goals, not just optimization without direction. Fine-tuning excels with substantial task-specific data.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely outlines fine-tuning use cases under customization strategies.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

"k-shot prompting" (e.g., few-shot) involves providing k examples of a task in the prompt to guide the LLM’s output via in-context learning, without additional training. This makes Option B correct. Option A (k words) misinterprets—examples, not word count, matter. Option C (training) confuses prompting with fine-tuning. Option D (k outcomes) is unrelated—k refers to examples, not limits. k-shot leverages pre-trained knowledge efficiently.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely covers k-shot prompting under prompt engineering techniques.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

T-Few, a Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning method, updates fewer parameters than Vanilla fine-tuning, leading to faster training and lower computational costs—Option D is correct. Option A (complexity) isn’t directly affected—structure remains. Option B (generalization) may occur but isn’t the primary advantage. Option C (interpretability) isn’t a focus. Efficiency is T-Few’s hallmark.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely compares T-Few and Vanilla under fine-tuning benefits.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

T-Few fine-tuning, a Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) method, updates only a small fraction of an LLM’s weights, reducing computational cost and overfitting risk compared to Vanilla fine-tuning (all weights). This makes Option C correct. Option A describes Vanilla fine-tuning. Option B is false—T-Few updates weights, not architecture. Option D is incorrect—T-Few typically reduces training time. T-Few optimizes efficiency.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely highlights T-Few under fine-tuning options.