Question bank
Top 100 Priority Questions (GenAI Engineer)
100 itemsWhat the provenance labels mean
In this bank
Rounds: GenAI/LLM depth · GenAI system design · Resume/Projects (required) · Coding and Behavioral are in their own banks.
Naming note: the page URL still says top-100-most-asked so old links keep working. The list is a set of priority questions, not a count of what companies ask.
Provenance: every item carries a label in the Provenance column: Common industry pattern (topics that recur across GenAI engineering interviews) or Generated practice. Common industry pattern means the topic recurs across interview guides and the field; the wording and ordering are ours. Generated practice means we wrote the prompt as practice. None is verified company-specific. The priority stars are a judgment about importance, not measured data. Check a company’s current process before relying on any of this.
Priority (our judgment, not data): ★★★ high priority · ★★ common · ★ differentiator for senior or strong candidates.
How to use: cover the answer, answer aloud in 60 to 90 seconds, then compare. Retry the ones you missed with a nearby variant. Deep dives are linked per section.
Each table row: question, answer key, one follow-up, provenance. Where a row overlaps a question in a per-level bank, the answer key points to it; those banks also list a Common mistake for each question: Fundamentals, Intermediate, Advanced, Scenario Based.
A. LLM fundamentals (How LLMs work, Tokenization and embeddings)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ★★★ | What does an LLM compute at each step? | Distribution over next token (logits→softmax), a decoding rule picks one, append, repeat. | Where does randomness come from? See F1 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 2 | ★★★ | Explain self-attention (Q/K/V). | Scores = QKᵀ/√d, softmax weights, weighted sum of V; causal mask; multi-head; O(n²). | Why √d? Why positional info? See F2 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 3 | ★★★ | What is a KV-cache? | Cache past K/V so decode only computes the new token; memory grows with length × layers × KV heads × batch. | Prefill vs decode? See F4 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 4 | ★★★ | Why transformers over RNNs? | Parallel training, direct long-range paths, scale; cost O(n²). | Where do SSM/RNN-style models still win? See F3 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 5 | ★★★ | What is tokenization and why not words? | Subword (BPE etc.) balances vocab size and coverage, handles unseen words; cost/context vary by language. | Why do numbers/code tokenize oddly? See F5 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 6 | ★★ | Temperature, top-k, top-p? | Temperature reshapes distribution; top-k/top-p truncate the tail; use low for extraction, higher for creativity. | Why can temperature 0 still vary between runs? See F6 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 7 | ★★ | Context window limits and “lost in the middle”? | Cost and attention dilution; evidence mid-prompt used less reliably; order and trim. | Mitigations? | Common industry pattern |
| 8 | ★★ | Encoder vs decoder vs encoder-decoder? | Decoder-only dominates generation; encoders for embeddings/classification. | Where does an embedding model fit? | Common industry pattern |
| 9 | ★★ | What is an embedding and why cosine similarity? | Dense vector capturing meaning; cosine compares direction, robust to magnitude. | When prefer dot product? See F8 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 10 | ★★ | Pretraining vs SFT vs RLHF/DPO? | Knowledge → format/behavior → preference alignment. | What does each fix? | Common industry pattern |
| 11 | ★★ | What is MoE (mixture of experts)? | Router sends each token to a few experts, so total parameters grow while per-token compute tracks only the active experts. Costs: all experts must sit in memory, plus load balancing. Not covered as a lesson in this course. | Serving implications? | Common industry pattern |
| 12 | ★ | GQA/MQA? | GQA shares K/V heads across groups of query heads (MQA uses one K/V head): smaller KV-cache, faster decode. GQA usually costs little quality; MQA usually costs more. | Effect on concurrency? | Common industry pattern |
| 13 | ★ | Why do LLMs hallucinate? | Trained to produce plausible continuations, not to verify; knowledge gaps; no calibrated abstention. | What reduces it? | Common industry pattern |
B. Prompting and structured output (Prompting fundamentals, Reasoning models and structured outputs)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | ★★★ | Zero-shot vs few-shot vs CoT? | Examples steer format/behavior; CoT helps multi-step reasoning at token cost. | When does CoT hurt? See F7 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 15 | ★★★ | How do you get reliable JSON? | Schema-constrained decoding/tool calling, validate, bounded retry, fallback. | Does valid mean correct? | Common industry pattern |
| 16 | ★★ | How do you version and test prompts? | Treat as code: version, eval set, regression gate, canary. | What if the provider updates the model? | Common industry pattern |
| 17 | ★★ | System vs user prompt roles? | Priority and intent separation, but not a security boundary. | Why not? | Common industry pattern |
| 18 | ★★ | When to use a reasoning model? | Hard multi-step tasks, high cost of error, latency tolerance; not for extraction/FAQ. | How measure the gain? | Common industry pattern |
| 19 | ★★ | Self-consistency? | Sample N, majority vote; ×N cost. | Alternatives? | Common industry pattern |
| 20 | ★ | Prompt caching? | Static prefix first; changes early invalidate later cache. | Prompt layout? | Common industry pattern |
| 21 | ★ | Few-shot example selection? | Dynamic retrieval of similar examples, diversity, edge cases. | Risks (leakage, bias)? | Common industry pattern |
C. Embeddings, vector search, chunking (Embeddings and similarity search, Vector databases, RAG architecture and chunking)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | ★★★ | How do you choose chunk size? | Small = precise/low context; large = context/noisy; tune on eval with overlap and structure-aware splits. | What if answers span chunks? See I3 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 23 | ★★★ | How does HNSW work? | Layered proximity graph, greedy descent; recall/latency/memory knobs (M, efSearch). | Compare IVF/PQ. See I4 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 24 | ★★★ | Dense vs sparse vs hybrid? | Semantics vs exact tokens; fuse with RRF. | Why RRF over score sums? See I11 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 25 | ★★★ | What is reranking and why? | Cross-encoder scores query+chunk jointly; retrieve 50, rerank to 5. | Latency cost? See I12 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 26 | ★★ | Choosing an embedding model? | Domain/language fit, dimension, latency, cost, max length, eval on your data. | Changing it later? | Common industry pattern |
| 27 | ★★ | Metadata filtering and permissions? | Pre-filter at retrieval; ACL enforced in code. | Pre vs post filtering? | Common industry pattern |
| 28 | ★★ | Vector DB vs pgvector vs Elasticsearch? | Scale, ops, hybrid support, filtering, cost. | When is pgvector enough? | Common industry pattern |
| 29 | ★★ | Parent-child retrieval? | Match small, return big. | Token cost? | Common industry pattern |
| 30 | ★ | Embedding drift and re-indexing? | New model ⇒ re-embed all; versioned blue/green indexes. | Zero-downtime plan? | Common industry pattern |
| 31 | ★ | Multilingual retrieval? | Multilingual embeddings, language metadata, translate-query option. | Evaluate how? | Generated practice |
| 32 | ★ | MMR / diversity? | Trade relevance vs redundancy. | When harmful? | Generated practice |
D. RAG architecture and variants (The core RAG pipeline, Better retrieval, All RAG types)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | ★★★ | Explain RAG end to end. | Ingest→chunk→embed→index; query→(rewrite)→retrieve→rerank→assemble→generate with citations. | Where does it fail most? See I2 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 34 | ★★★ | RAG vs fine-tuning vs long context? | RAG for knowledge, fine-tune for behavior, long context for small corpora; they combine. | Cost/latency of each? See F10 in Fundamentals. | Common industry pattern |
| 35 | ★★★ | Bad answer despite correct doc in corpus — debug. | Indexed? retrieved? in final prompt? followed? Paste-gold-passage test. | Which logs? See S1 in Scenario Based. | Generated practice |
| 36 | ★★★ | Why does RAG still hallucinate? | Retrieval miss, noisy context, ignored context, ambiguous sources, no abstention. | Fixes? See A1 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
| 37 | ★★ | Naive vs advanced vs modular vs agentic RAG? | Maturity ladder; add complexity only for named failures. | Cost of agentic? | Common industry pattern |
| 38 | ★★ | HyDE? | Embed LLM-written hypothetical answer; bridges phrasing gap; may bias retrieval. | When avoid? | Common industry pattern |
| 39 | ★★ | GraphRAG vs vector RAG? | Graph for multi-hop/global questions; heavy indexing; staleness. | Example query? | Common industry pattern |
| 40 | ★★ | Self-RAG vs CRAG vs Adaptive RAG? | Self-critique tokens; grade-and-fallback; route by complexity. | Which is a drop-in? | Generated practice |
| 41 | ★★ | Multi-turn RAG? | Rewrite follow-ups to standalone query; history budget; skip retrieval for chit-chat. | Failure example? | Common industry pattern |
| 42 | ★★ | Query transformations? | Rewrite, multi-query, decomposition, step-back, HyDE; each +latency. | Gate them how? | Common industry pattern |
| 43 | ★★ | Citations and groundedness? | Chunk ids in prompt; require quotes; verify claims against sources. | Citation accuracy metric? | Common industry pattern |
| 44 | ★★ | Multimodal / table-heavy docs? | Layout-aware parsing, table preservation, VLM for charts, page citations. | See Multimodal GenAI and document AI. | Common industry pattern |
| 45 | ★ | Lost in the middle in RAG? | Put best chunks first/last, fewer better chunks. | Reorder strategy? | Common industry pattern |
| 46 | ★ | Contextual retrieval / chunk context enrichment? | Prepend doc/section context before embedding. | Cost at ingestion? | Generated practice |
| 47 | ★ | Freshness in RAG? | Incremental upserts, CDC, tombstones for deletes, freshness SLO. | Revoked docs? | Common industry pattern |
E. Evaluation (RAG evaluation and hallucination, Observability and eval pipelines, Evaluating LLM systems, RAG evaluation in depth)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | ★★★ | How do you evaluate a RAG system? | Retrieval (recall@k, MRR, nDCG) separate from generation (faithfulness, relevance, correctness) + online signals. | Which first? See A7 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
| 49 | ★★★ | recall@k vs precision@k vs MRR vs nDCG? | Found-in-top-k; fraction relevant; 1/rank of first hit; graded rank-weighted. | Compute MRR for first-hit ranks 3, 1 and none. | Common industry pattern |
| 50 | ★★★ | Can you trust LLM-as-judge? | Biased (position, verbosity, self-preference); validate vs humans, rubric, pairwise both orders. | Agreement metric? See A12 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
| 51 | ★★★ | Build a golden set. | Real queries + SME cases, gold chunks, edge/unanswerable, versioned dev vs held-out. | Size/noise? | Common industry pattern |
| 52 | ★★ | How detect regressions after a prompt/model change? | Regression suite, paired comparison/CI, slices, gates, canary. | Small-sample noise? | Common industry pattern |
| 53 | ★★ | Offline vs online eval? | Offline gates; online A/B and implicit signals catch distribution shift. | Metrics? | Common industry pattern |
| 54 | ★★ | Benchmark contamination? | Test data in training inflates scores; use private product evals. | Detect how? | Common industry pattern |
| 55 | ★★ | Test abstention. | Include unanswerable queries; measure correct refusal vs false refusal. | Threshold choice? See A3 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
| 56 | ★★ | Evaluate a summarizer/chatbot. | Rubric (faithfulness, coverage, concision), deterministic checks, judge + human sample. | Slices? | Common industry pattern |
| 57 | ★ | Synthetic eval data pitfalls? | Easier, leaks wording, narrow; human-review a sample. | Mitigation? | Generated practice |
F. Agents and tools (Function and tool calling, Agentic patterns: ReAct, planning and memory, Designing an agent product, Model Context Protocol and tool ecosystems, Multi-agent systems: when to use them and what they cost, Agent evaluation: state, trajectory, pass^k and release gates)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58 | ★★★ | How does function calling work? | Model emits structured call; app executes; result returned; model continues. | Who validates arguments? See I6 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 59 | ★★★ | ReAct vs plan-and-execute? | Adaptive step-by-step vs upfront plan; hybrid with replanning. | Pick by? See A6 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
| 60 | ★★★ | Agent stuck in a loop. | Step/budget caps, repeated-call detection, progress checks, clear tool errors, escalate. | Root causes? See A2 in Advanced. | Generated practice |
| 61 | ★★★ | Single vs multi-agent? | Simplest wins; multi-agent for parallel breadth/isolation; costs tokens and coordination. | Example justification? | Common industry pattern |
| 62 | ★★ | What is MCP and how differs from function calling? | Standard client-server protocol (the host app embeds MCP clients) for tools/resources/prompts; function calling is the model-facing interface. | Security risks? | Common industry pattern |
| 63 | ★★ | Tool design best practices. | Clear names/descriptions, narrow scope, typed schemas, helpful errors, idempotency. | Too many tools? | Common industry pattern |
| 64 | ★★ | Human-in-the-loop. | Approval for irreversible/high-stakes actions; policy by risk tier. | Latency vs safety? | Common industry pattern |
| 65 | ★★ | Agent memory design. | Working/episodic/semantic/procedural; write/recall/forget; privacy. | Memory poisoning? | Common industry pattern |
| 66 | ★★ | Evaluate an agent. | State-based outcome, trajectory, pass^k reliability, cost/steps, safety. | Why pass^k? | Common industry pattern |
| 67 | ★★ | Error compounding. | pⁿ success; shorten chains, verify steps, checkpoints. | Compute 0.95¹⁰. | Common industry pattern |
| 68 | ★ | Context engineering. | Write/select/compress/isolate; cache-friendly layout. | Degrades after 30 steps? | Generated practice |
| 69 | ★ | Sandboxing code-executing agents. | Isolated containers, no secrets, egress allow-list, resource limits. | Escape risks? | Common industry pattern |
G. Safety, security, guardrails (Guardrails, safety and prompt injection, Limiting blast radius and treating output as untrusted, Designing content moderation and guardrail systems)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70 | ★★★ | Prompt injection (direct vs indirect). | Instructions and data share a channel; indirect via docs/tools/web; defense in depth. | Why prompt alone fails? See I8 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 71 | ★★★ | Defenses. | Least-privilege tools, authz in code, content isolation, output validation, egress control, approvals, monitoring. | Which is strongest? See A4 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
| 72 | ★★ | PII and data privacy. | Redact at ingestion/output, tenant isolation, retention, deletion across vectors/caches/logs. | Right to erasure? | Common industry pattern |
| 73 | ★★ | Guardrail architecture. | Input + output classifiers, policy engine, fallback/refusal, appeal path. | False positives? | Common industry pattern |
| 74 | ★★ | Jailbreak and red-teaming. | Adversarial test suites, automated attacks, regression set. | Frequency? | Common industry pattern |
| 75 | ★★ | OWASP LLM risks. | Prompt injection, sensitive information disclosure, improper output handling, excessive agency, supply chain, system prompt leakage (OWASP 2025 list; check the current list). | Pick two and mitigate. | Common industry pattern |
| 76 | ★ | Excessive agency. | Too many permissions/tools; scope and approvals. | Example incident? | Common industry pattern |
| 77 | ★ | Hallucination guardrails. | Grounding check, citation verification, abstain. | Cost? See A3 in Advanced. | Common industry pattern |
H. Production, cost, latency, serving (Cost and latency optimization, LLM inference and serving, Production deployment of RAG, RAG security, reliability and release)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78 | ★★★ | LLM app too slow/expensive — what do you do? | Measure first (tokens, TTFT, stage latency), then caching, routing, shorter prompts, parallelism, smaller model for cost and latency; streaming only improves perceived latency; state the quality cost of each. | Order of attack? See I9 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 79 | ★★★ | Semantic caching risks. | Wrong near-hit; scope by tenant/ACL/version; threshold; TTL/invalidation. | Measure false hits? See A5 in Advanced. | Generated practice |
| 80 | ★★★ | Model routing. | Classify difficulty; small model for easy; evaluate no quality loss. | Router errors? | Common industry pattern |
| 81 | ★★ | Prefill vs decode. | Compute-bound vs bandwidth-bound. | Which metric each? | Common industry pattern |
| 82 | ★★ | Continuous batching & PagedAttention. | Iteration-level scheduling; paged KV removes fragmentation. | Why raises throughput? | Common industry pattern |
| 83 | ★★ | Quantization trade-offs. | Memory/speed vs quality; validate on your eval. | Weight vs KV quantization? | Common industry pattern |
| 84 | ★★ | Speculative decoding. | Draft proposes, target verifies; same distribution; speedup by acceptance rate. | Downsides? | Common industry pattern |
| 85 | ★★ | Self-host vs API. | Cost at scale, data residency, control vs ops burden, quality. | Break-even? | Common industry pattern |
| 86 | ★★ | Streaming. | Perceived latency; TTFT. | Doesn’t reduce total time? | Common industry pattern |
| 87 | ★★ | Observability. | Trace prompts, retrieved ids, latency/cost per stage, feedback. | Privacy of logs? | Common industry pattern |
| 88 | ★★ | Rate limits and reliability. | Backoff, circuit breaker, fallback provider/model, queues. | Degradation order? | Common industry pattern |
| 89 | ★ | Release process. | Offline eval → shadow → canary → rollback; version prompts/models/indexes. | Provider model deprecations? | Common industry pattern |
I. Fine-tuning (Fine-tuning vs RAG vs prompting, Fine-tuning methods: SFT, LoRA, QLoRA and DPO, Fine-tuning data, risks and shipping)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | ★★★ | When to fine-tune vs RAG vs prompt? | Prompt first, RAG for knowledge, fine-tune for behavior/format/distillation. | Does fine-tuning fix hallucination? See I10 in Intermediate. | Common industry pattern |
| 91 | ★★★ | Explain LoRA. | Frozen W + low-rank BA; tiny trainable fraction; mergeable/swappable. | Param fraction for r=8, d=4096? | Common industry pattern |
| 92 | ★★ | QLoRA. | 4-bit base + LoRA adapters; fits large models on small GPUs. | Trade-off? | Common industry pattern |
| 93 | ★★ | RLHF vs DPO. | Reward model + RL vs direct preference loss. | Why DPO simpler? | Common industry pattern |
| 94 | ★★ | Data for fine-tuning. | Quality, diversity, dedupe, format match, holdout, decontamination. | How many examples? | Common industry pattern |
| 95 | ★ | Catastrophic forgetting. | Regression on general skills; mix data, lower LR, adapters, regression suite. | Detect? | Common industry pattern |
J. Projects, judgment, and scenarios (deep dives in Scenario Based and Projects and Behavioral)
| # | Priority | Question | Answer key | Follow-up | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96 | ★★★ | Walk me through your best GenAI project. | Problem, constraints, architecture, your decisions, metrics (real), failures, what you’d change. | Why that design over alternatives? | Common industry pattern |
| 97 | ★★★ | Design an enterprise RAG assistant with permissions. | Requirements→ingestion→index→hybrid+ACL retrieval→generation→eval→security→cost→failure modes. | See Designing a RAG QA system. | Common industry pattern |
| 98 | ★★ | When would you NOT use an LLM? | Deterministic rules, SQL/APIs, tiny static data, strict latency/cost, high-stakes without verification. | Example? See A11 in Advanced. | Generated practice |
| 99 | ★★ | Quality dropped in production last week — triage. | Diff versions, check ingestion/index, traces by slice, replay eval, rollback. | What first? | Generated practice |
| 100 | ★★ | Trade-off: quality vs latency vs cost — how do you decide? | Tie to user value and SLOs; measure Pareto frontier; pick per-query routes. | Give a real example. | Generated practice |
Study order (suggested)
- Start with the ★★★ items: answer aloud, then compare.
- Then ★★ items in the sections matching your next mock.
- Take ★ items once the first two groups feel solid. Pair with: Fundamentals, Intermediate, Advanced, Scenario Based, Product Company, Coding Round, Projects and Behavioral, RAG interview drills and mock, and Coding, project defense and mock rounds.