| 1 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | What does the Faithfulness metric measure in RAGAS? | Easy | 1 | A | The truthfulness of the generated answer compared to the retrieved context | The relevance of the answer to the original question | The accuracy of the ranking of contexts | The coverage of the retrieval process | Faithfulness checks if all statements in the answer can be supported by the retrieved context, avoiding hallucinations. |
| 2 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Which LLM framework is RAGAS designed to evaluate? | Easy | 1 | B | Agents | RAG systems | Fine-tuned models | Traditional Search Engines | Ragas is an automated evaluation framework designed specifically for RAG systems. |
| 3 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | What do you need to annotate data manually when using RAGAS? | Easy | 1 | C | Large scale human annotations | Only expert domain knowledge | Nothing, it uses LLMs like GPT-4 to automate evaluation | Both standard Q&A pairs and ranking queries | Unlike traditional methods, Ragas uses LLMs to automate the evaluation process without needing heavy human annotations. |
| 4 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Which dimension is measured by Context Precision? | Easy | 1 | C | Quality of generation | Semantic similarity to the user query | Accuracy of the retrieval process | Coverage of expected facts | Context Precision measures the accuracy of the retrieval process by assessing the ranking of contexts. |
| 5 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | What is the main purpose of Answer Relevancy? | Easy | 1 | D | Fact-checking the answer | Verifying truthfulness | Guaranteeing context coverage | Measuring relevance between answer and original question | It evaluates the relevance between the answer and question to confirm it addresses the problem asked. |
| 6 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | What value range do Ragas metrics return? | Easy | 1 | B | 0 to 100 | 0 to 1 | -1 to 1 | 1 to 5 | Each metric gives a value from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better quality. |
| 7 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Which metric evaluates if relevant chunks are ranked high in retrieved contexts? | Easy | 1 | C | Faithfulness | Context Recall | Context Precision | Answer Relevancy | Context Precision checks if relevant chunks are ranked high in the list of retrieved contexts. |
| 8 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | How many main metrics are covered in the RAGAS documentation? | Easy | 1 | A | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | The four main metrics are faithfulness, answer relevancy, context precision, and context recall. |
| 9 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | If Context Recall is 0, what does that indicate? | Easy | 1 | A | Retriever failed to find necessary context | Rank 1 is an irrelevant context | LLM generated hallucination | The answer is irrelevant to the query | It indicates the retriever failed to find context containing necessary information to answer the question. |
| 10 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Which two metrics evaluate the "retrieval" performance? | Easy | 1 | B | Faithfulness & Answer Relevancy | Context Precision & Context Recall | Answer Relevancy & Context Recall | Context Precision & Faithfulness | Context precision and context recall evaluate retrieval performance. |
| 11 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Describe the calculation process for Faithfulness in Ragas. | Medium | 2 | A | Decompose answer to statements, verify against context, calculate ratio | Generate questions, embed them, calculate cosine similarity | Determine context relevance, calculate Precision@k, aggregate | Decompose reference answer, verify if inferences exist in retrieved context | The process is: Decomposition (claims), Verification (checked against context), and Scoring (ratio). |
| 12 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | How does Answer Relevancy determine its score technically? | Medium | 2 | C | By classifying the answer using a trained classifier | By matching keywords between answer and question | By reverse-engineering questions from answer and calculating embedding cosine similarity | By comparing the character count of answer vs question | LLM generates N questions from the given answer, converts them to embeddings, and compares cosine similarity with the original question. |
| 13 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | A low Context Recall score means what in terms of information availability? | Medium | 2 | D | The information is hallucinated | The answer has redundant information | The retrieved information is scattered | The necessary facts from the reference answer are missing in the retrieved contexts | It means the necessary information from the reference answer was not found in the retrieved contexts. |
| 14 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | In Context Precision calculation, what is vk? | Medium | 2 | C | Velocity of retrieval | Volume of chunks | Relevance indicator at position k | Value of cosine similarity | vk∈{0,1} is the relevance indicator at position k. |
| 15 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Why might an answer score high in Faithfulness but low in Answer Relevancy? | Medium | 2 | B | The answer is hallucinated but relevant | The answer is entirely true based on context but fails to address the user's specific question | The retriever brought back poor context | The context precision is very low | It can be completely faithful to retrieved context, but that context (and answer) might not be what the user asked for. |
| 16 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Why is Faithfulness strictly compared to retrieved context and not world knowledge? | Medium | 2 | A | To prevent LLM hallucinations from being counted as correct if the retriever failed | Ragas has no access to world knowledge | The LLM doesn't know facts | World knowledge costs more tokens | RAG's core value is grounding generation on specific private/provided context, so it measures adherence to that context only to prevent unaccounted hallucinations. |
| 17 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | If LLM splits an answer into 3 statements, and only 2 are verified in context, Faithfulness is? | Medium | 2 | B | 0.5 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 1.0 | Faithfulness relies on the ratio of correct statements: 2 out of 3 makes it ~0.67. |
| 18 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Given a scenario where a user asks about Einstein's death, but the context only contains his birth, and the LLM answers "Einstein died in 1955" using its internal knowledge. What are the RAGAS metric implications? | Hard | 3 | B | High Faithfulness, Low Answer Relevancy | Low Faithfulness, High Answer Relevancy | Low Faithfulness, Low Context Recall | High Context Precision, High Context Recall | It answers the user (High Relevancy), but the claim isn't in context, making Faithfulness low. |
| 19 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | To improve Context Precision in a RAG pipeline, what architecture modification would you introduce? | Hard | 3 | C | Increase LLM temperature | Swap FAISS for ChromaDB | Add a Cross-encoder reranking step | Generate multiple answers and average them | Reranking specifically improves the order/ranking of retrieved chunks, heavily impacting Context Precision metrics. |
| 20 | Unit 1: LLMOps | Lec2 | RAGAS Metrics | Detail the mathematical rationale behind using N reverse-engineered questions for calculating Answer Relevancy. | Hard | 3 | A | Averages out the stochastic nature of LLMs generating questions to provide a stable semantic similarity | It is required to satisfy vector dimensions | One question uses up too few tokens | N acts as a padding token for embeddings | Generating N questions and averaging their cosine similarities mitigates the variance inherent in LLM generation, ensuring a robust relevancy score. |
| 21 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Observability Concepts | What is Observability in the context of LLM applications? | Easy | 1 | A | The ability to track flows, errors and costs of LLM apps acting as black boxes | A library for generating UI code | A vector database | The algorithm used for chunking texts | It tracks probabilistic components acting as black boxes, aiding in tracing, tracking costs, and debugging. |
| 22 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | LangFuse Basics | Which of these tools is known for being Open Source? | Easy | 1 | B | LangChain | LangFuse | LangSmith | OpenAI | LangFuse is a popular open-source tool focusing on engineering observability. |
| 23 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Observability Challenges | What makes LLM applications harder to debug than traditional software? | Easy | 1 | C | They use more memory | They require internet connections | They involve probabilistic, non-deterministic components | They use Python | You give input, get output. LLMs act as probabilisitic black boxes. |
| 24 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | LangSmith Basics | Who built LangSmith? | Easy | 1 | B | Google | The LangChain Team | OpenAI | Meta | LangSmith is built by the LangChain team for native integration. |
| 25 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | LangFuse Integration | In LangFuse, what is used to automatically instrument LangChain chains code? | Easy | 1 | C | System.out.println | VectorEmbeddings | CallbackHandler | FAISS | LangFuse provides a CallbackHandler that automatically instruments chains. |
| 26 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Prompt Management | Why should you manage prompts in a tool like LangFuse instead of hardcoding in Git? | Easy | 1 | A | To allow non-engineers to tweak them | Because Git is too slow | Because Git charges per token | To hide prompts from developers | It acts as a CMS for prompts so non-engineers can comfortably inspect and tweak them. |
| 27 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Setup | How can you enable LangSmith auto-tracing in a LangChain project usually? | Easy | 1 | D | Rewrite all code to use LangSmith classes | Contact support to enable it | Import enable_smith module | Just set environment variables | LangSmith is magic; you often don't need code changes, just environment variables. |
| 28 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Production Best Practices | What is the recommended tracing sampling rate for Production environments? | Easy | 1 | C | 100% | 50% | 1-5% of traffic | None | In production, tracing every request is noisy and expensive, so 1-5% or high importance traces are recommended. |
| 29 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Privacy | How handle PII Data Privacy before logging to a cloud observability tool? | Easy | 1 | B | Do nothing | Run PII Masking/Redaction functions | Encrypt with simple base64 | Delete all logs | Never log sensitive data; run PII Masking or use enterprise redacting features. |
| 30 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Alerts | What is an example of a good alert to set up in observability? | Easy | 1 | A | Error Rate Spike > 10% in 5 min | "Hello World" printed | CPU temperature | Single user logged out | You should alert on things like Error Rate > 10%, Latency Spikes, or Cost Anomalies. |
| 31 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | LangFuse vs LangSmith | If self-hosting data privacy is an absolute requirement and budget is zero, which tool is recommended? | Medium | 2 | C | Weights & Biases | LangSmith | LangFuse | CloudWatch | LangFuse is Open Source (MIT) and offers easy self-hosting (Docker Compose) for free. |
| 32 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | LangSmith Playground | What is the "Playground: Edit and Re-run" feature in LangSmith useful for? | Medium | 2 | A | You can take a failed production trace, change the prompt, and test a fix immediately | Training new models | Deploying code to AWS | Chatting with other developers | It allows you to take failed real-world traces and edit prompts/parameters to instantly see if the issue resolves. |
| 33 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Latency Debugging | If a RAG request takes 10 seconds, how does tracing help? | Medium | 2 | B | It makes the query faster | It breaks down the latency per component (e.g., Vector DB vs API completion) | It charges the user for the wait time | It cancels requests longer than 5 seconds | Tracing visualizes the execution flow, pinpointing exactly which step (Vector Search vs Generate) is the bottleneck. |
| 34 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Cost Tracking | Why is Cost Tracking a critical feature in LLM Observability compared to traditional app monitoring? | Medium | 2 | D | Because AWS charges are cheap | Because you don't need servers | Because LLMs don't cost real money | Because LLM API calls are charged per-token and single runaway loops can cost hundreds of dollars quickly | API calls are expensive, requiring real-time tracking to prevent unmanaged financial overruns. |
| 35 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Langchain Integration | What environment variable activates LangSmith tracing? | Medium | 2 | B | LANGCHAIN_DEBUG=1 | LANGCHAIN_TRACING_V2=true | LANGCHAIN_LOG=all | LANGSMITH_ACTIVE=1 | export LANGCHAIN_TRACING_V2=true activates LangSmith native tracing. |
| 36 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Prompt CMS | How do you fetch a production prompt dynamically using LangFuse SDK? | Medium | 2 | A | Using langfuse.get_prompt(name, version) | Reading from a local .json file | Executing a GraphQL query to Github | Using prompt = os.getenv('PROMPT') | Langfuse acts as a CMS and lets you retrieve prompts using get_prompt("name", version="production"). |
| 37 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Alerts & Best Practices | Why shouldn't you just "stare at dashboards" for production LLM apps? | Medium | 2 | A | You need automated alerts (error spikes, costs) to respond fast to anomalies | Dashboards are always broken | It slows down the computer | Observability doesn't provide dashboards | Dashboards are passive. Automated alerts are needed to actively manage sudden cost, latency, or error anomalies. |
| 38 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Advanced LangChain Integration | You have a complex application utilizing standard Python code, LangChain agent loops, and custom API calls. Should you prefer LangSmith or LangFuse, and why? | Hard | 3 | B | LangSmith, because it supports Python natively better | LangFuse, because it is platform-agnostic and instruments cleanly across non-LangChain code too. | LangSmith, because LangChain is mandatory. | LangFuse, because it has an "Edit and Re-run" playground. | LangFuse is platform-agnostic for non-LangChain code, making it better for mixed-stack integrations, while LangSmith is highly specific and native to LangChain execution loops. |
| 39 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Debugging Scenarios | In production, users report the chatbot occasionally ignores their negative feedback instructions. How would you leverage LangSmith to resolve this? | Hard | 3 | C | By deleting the user history and trying again | Check the VectorDB logs | Locate the failed traces in LangSmith, transition them to the Playground, adjust the system prompt, and replay to verify compliance | Re-index the FAISS database | LangSmith's Playground allows you to take directly failed traces, manipulate the prompt, and replay the exact trace environment to find the fix. |
| 40 | Unit 2: Observability | Lec6 | Data Security Architecture | Explain a robust architectural design for handling HIPAA/PII compliance while using a SaaS LLM Observability platform like LangSmith Enterprise. | Hard | 3 | A | Run an edge/middleware service that performs localized PII Entity masking/redaction before transmitting traces to the LangSmith API | Avoid observability tools completely | Share passwords directly via the agent | Mask PII inside the LangSmith GUI | PII must not leave the secure perimeter; redaction must happen at the application layer or middleware before data is shipped via logs/traces. |
| 41 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | What is the main characteristic of Naive RAG? | Easy | 1 | A | Relies purely on semantic vector similarity search | Combines Graph and Vector | Uses query transformation | Extracts relationships | Naive RAG relies purely on semantic similarity and simple Top-K lookup. |
| 42 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Which element separates Advanced RAG from Naive RAG? | Easy | 1 | B | Connecting to APIs | Hybrid search (Vector + BM25) and Reranking | Using GPT-4 | Splitting text | Advanced uses hybrid search, query transformations like HyDE, and reranking. |
| 43 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | What structure does GraphRAG utilize? | Easy | 1 | C | Relational SQL tables | Simple vector arrays | Knowledge graph + vectors with nodes and edges | Document JSON trees | GraphRAG utilizes knowledge graphs, treating entities as nodes and relationships as edges. |
| 44 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | What is a major disadvantage of Naive RAG? | Easy | 1 | D | High cost | Extremely slow | Too complex | No relationships mapping, treats chunks as islands | Simple RAG ignores relationships, treating every text chunk as an isolated island. |
| 45 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | What is semantic chunking? | Easy | 1 | B | Cutting text by character limit | Splitting text based on meaning breaks | Chunking by number of words | Randomly breaking paragraphs | Semantic chunking splits text based on meaning boundaries rather than arbitrary character counts. |
| 46 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | In Advanced RAG, what does the "Cross-encoder reranking" do? | Easy | 1 | A | It re-scores retrieved results to maximize true relevance | It generates the final answer | It translates the query | It graphs the entities | Reranking is a heavy, accurate scoring model that filters noise from initial retrieval results. |
| 47 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | What is a "multi-hop" query? | Easy | 1 | B | A query traversing multiple servers | A question that requires connecting facts across different documents | A fast query | A query generating 5 hops | It requires the system to traverse A -> B -> C across different chunks/nodes to answer. |
| 48 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | What graph database is typically highlighted for GraphRAG use cases? | Easy | 1 | C | PostgreSQL | MongoDB | Neo4j | Redis | Neo4j is a popular graph database for exploring nodes and edges. |
| 49 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Which system combines Vector + Graph + Routing? | Easy | 1 | D | Naive | Advanced | GraphRAG | Hybrid System | The Hybrid System attempts to synthesize both graph and advanced vector search via routing. |
| 50 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | To execute an experimental comparison, what data split was used? | Easy | 1 | A | 20 Train, 180 Test | 100 Train, 100 Test | 50 Train, 150 Test | No split | The dataset was strictly split into 20 questions for Train (prompt tuning) and 180 for Test. |
| 51 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Explain the concept of HyDE in Advanced RAG. | Medium | 2 | B | Hybrid Data Execution | Hypothetical Document Embeddings: Generating a hypothetical answer to search against | High Yield Document Extraction | Hierarchical Dynamic Extraction | Query transformation rewrites ambiguous queries or generates hypothetical answers to improve semantic matching. |
| 52 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Why does GraphRAG perform exceptionally well on Relational and Multi-Hop Questions compared to Naive RAG? | Medium | 2 | C | It uses a larger Embedding Model | It stores more documents | It has explicit defined relationships separating entities, letting it traverse A->B->C seamlessly | It generates shorter answers | GraphRAG explicitly builds "knows how things are connected" structures, preventing loss of context. |
| 53 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Name the primary trade-off encountered when building a Hybrid RAG system. | Medium | 2 | D | Lower overall quality | Reduced contextual awareness | Slower vector lookups | Highest complexity, highest cost, and immense maintenance burden | While offering peak recall, it combines all pipelines, meaning severe engineering complexity and top cost. |
| 54 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | In evaluation design, why is "Number of API calls" considered an important metric? | Medium | 2 | A | It is a direct measure of system complexity, cost, and risk of failure for the architecture | It measures token length | It tells us if OpenAI is down | It determines the embedding algorithm | A complex agent/RAG design with many API calls risks cascading failures and multiplies costs quickly. |
| 55 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | When should you purposefully choose Naive RAG over Advanced RAG? | Medium | 2 | C | When queries are highly relational | When budget is unlimited | When dealing with simple factual questions, low-latency requirements, and very small document datasets (< 50 docs) | When needing hybrid search | Naive RAG excels at being fast, cheap, and simple for small boundaries of facts where deep ranking isn't needed. |
| 56 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | How does Community Detection (e.g. Leiden algorithm) assist GraphRAG? | Medium | 2 | B | It deletes old nodes | It groups related nodes into subgraphs, allowing the retrieval of entire themes or communities as context | It ranks vectors by similarity | It manages API rate limits | Community detection algorithms find clusters of related entities, helping abstract higher level context. |
| 57 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | In a Hybrid system, how does "Adaptive Routing" theoretically work to improve efficiency? | Hard | 3 | A | By using a classifier LLM/model to inspect the incoming query to decide whether Graph traversal or Vector search is necessary before executing | By sending all queries to all databases | By routing requests to cheaper cloud regions | By storing data in multiple places | An intelligent routing step analyzes the query intent (e.g., Relational vs Factual) and directs traffic to the most efficient specific sub-pipeline to balance cost vs quality. |
| 58 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Critically analyze the phrase "Entity extraction quality: Garbage in, garbage out" inside the context of GraphRAG setup. | Hard | 3 | D | Entity extraction is cheap so it doesn't matter | Vector DBs handle bad entities naturally | It means Neo4j databases corrupt easily | If the LLM extracting (Subject, Predicate, Object) fails to identify correct ontological boundaries initially, the resulting Graph structure will be noisy and useless for retrieval | The entire Graph relies on the accuracy of the foundational knowledge extraction step. Bad extraction leads to bad graphs. |
| 59 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Assume a system integrates BM25 and Dense Vectors. Describe a mathematically robust way to merge these distinct ranked result lists. | Hard | 3 | A | Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) | Just concatenate them | Only use the Dense Vector results | Average the raw similarity scores directly | RRF is critical because BM25 scores (sparse) and Cosine Similarity (dense) exist on different scales. RRF merges based on positional ranks. |
| 60 | Unit 3: Architecture | Lec10 | RAG Architectures | Synthesize a final recommendation: You're launching an enterprise startup for legal documents covering 1M+ PDF pages. You have a mid-range budget but need flawless Relational analysis. What's the pragmatic technical roadmap? | Hard | 3 | C | Start Naive RAG -> Scale to Naive | Build a massive Hybrid System on day one | Start with Advanced RAG as default for stability and search quality, then phase in GraphRAG specifically for mapping explicitly defined legal contract relationships | Use GraphRAG for everything | The text suggests Advanced RAG as the definitive pragmatic baseline, while GraphRAG is specialized for highly relational data. Building hybrid early is too risky and costly. |