Free and Premium Databricks Databricks-Generative-AI-Engineer-Associate Dumps Questions Answers

The task involves improving a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application’s performance by experimenting with embedding models. The choice of embedding model impacts retrieval accuracy,which is critical for RAG systems. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks Generative AI Engineer best practices.

Option A: Pick an embedding model trained on related domain knowledge

Embedding models trained on domain-specific data (e.g., industry-specific corpora) produce vectors that better capture the semantics of the application’s context, improving retrieval relevance. For RAG, this is a key strategy to enhance performance.

Databricks Reference:"For optimal retrieval in RAG systems, select embedding models aligned with the domain of your data"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks," 2023).

Option B: Pick the most recent and most performant open LLM released at the time

LLMs are not embedding models; they generate text, not embeddings for retrieval. While recent LLMs may be performant for generation, this doesn’t address the embedding step in RAG. This option misunderstands the component being selected.

Databricks Reference: Embedding models and LLMs are distinct in RAG workflows:"Embedding models convert text to vectors, while LLMs generate responses"("Generative AI Cookbook").

Option C: Pick the embedding model ranked highest on the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) leaderboard hosted by HuggingFace

The MTEB leaderboard ranks models across general tasks, but high overall performance doesn’t guarantee suitability for a specific domain. A top-ranked model might excel in generic contexts but underperform on the engineer’s unique data.

Databricks Reference: General performance is less critical than domain fit:"Benchmark rankings provide a starting point, but domain-specific evaluation is recommended"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Option D: Pick an embedding model with multilingual support to support potential multilingual user questions

Multilingual support is useful only if the application explicitly requires it. Without evidence of multilingual needs, this adds complexity without guaranteed performance gains for the current use case.

Databricks Reference:"Choose features like multilingual support based on application requirements"("Building LLM-Powered Applications").

Conclusion: Option A is the best strategy because it prioritizes domain relevance, directly improving retrieval accuracy in a RAG system—aligning with Databricks’ emphasis on tailoring models to specific use cases.

When prioritizing cost and latency over quality in a Large Language Model (LLM)-based application, it is crucial to select a configuration that minimizes both computational resources and latency while still providing reasonable performance. Here's whyDis the best choice:

Context length: The context length of 512 tokens aligns with the chunk size used for the documents (maximum of 512 tokens per chunk). This is sufficient for capturing the needed information and generating responses without unnecessary overhead.

Smallest model size: The model with a size of 0.13GB is significantly smaller than the other options. This small footprint ensures faster inference times and lower memory usage, which directly reduces both latency and cost.

Embedding dimension: While the embedding dimension of 384 is smaller than the other options, it is still adequate for tasks where cost and speed are more important than precision and depth of understanding.

This setup achieves the desired balance between cost-efficiency and reasonable performance in a latency-sensitive, cost-conscious application.

 Problem Context: The task is to build an LLM-based question-answering application that integrates new documents frequently with minimal costs and development efforts.

 Explanation of Options:

Option A: Utilizes a prompt and a retriever, with the retriever output being fed into the LLM. This setup is efficient because it dynamically updates the data pool via the retriever, allowing the LLM to provide up-to-date answers based on the latest documents without needing to frequently retrain the model. This method offers a balance of cost-effectiveness and functionality.

Option B: Requires frequent retraining of the LLM, which is costly and labor-intensive.

Option C: Only involves prompt engineering and an LLM, which may not adequately handle the requirement for incorporating new documents unless it’s part of an ongoing retraining or updating mechanism, which would increase costs.

Option D: Involves an agent and a fine-tuned LLM, which could be overkill and lead to higher development and operational costs.

Option Ais the most suitable as it provides a cost-effective, minimal development approach while ensuring the application remains up-to-date with new information.

Problem Context: The engineer needs a cost-effective deployment strategy for an LLM application with relatively low request volume.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Switching to external models may not provide the required control or integration necessary for specific application needs.

Option B: Using a pay-per-token model is cost-effective, especially for applications with variable or low request volumes, as it aligns costs directly with usage.

Option C: Changing to a model with fewer parameters could reduce costs, but might also impact the performance and capabilities of the application.

Option D: Manually throttling requests is a less efficient and potentially error-prone strategy for managing costs.

OptionBis ideal, offering flexibility and cost control, aligning expenses directly with the application's usage patterns.

Problem Context: After switching to a model with a shorter context length, the error message indicating that the prompt token count has exceeded the limit suggests that the input to the model is too large.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Use a smaller embedding model to generate– This wouldn't necessarily address the issue of prompt size exceeding the model’s token limit.

Option B: Reduce the maximum output tokens of the new model– This option affects the output length, not the size of the input being too large.

Option C: Decrease the chunk size of embedded documents– This would help reduce the size of each document chunk fed into the model, ensuring that the input remains within the model's context length limitations.

Option D: Reduce the number of records retrieved from the vector database– By retrieving fewer records, the total input size to the model can be managed more effectively, keeping it within the allowable token limits.

Option E: Retrain the response generating model using ALiBi– Retraining the model is contrary to the stipulation not to change the response generating model.

OptionsCandDare the most effective solutions to manage the model’s shorter context length without changing the model itself, by adjusting the input size both in terms of individual document size and total documents retrieved.

In a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application built to answer questions about internal documents, especially when the dataset contains irrelevant content, it's crucial to guide the system to focus on the right information. The best way to achieve this is byincluding a clear instruction in the system prompt(option C).

System Prompt as Guidance:The system prompt is an effective way to instruct the LLM to limit its focus to SnoPen AI-related content. By clearly specifying that the model should avoid answering questions unrelated to SnoPen AI, you add an additional layer of control that helps the model stay on-topic, even if irrelevant content is present in the dataset.

Why This Approach Works:The prompt acts as a guiding principle for the model, narrowing its focus to specific domains. This prevents the model from generating answers based on irrelevant content, such as advertisements or news unrelated to SnoPen AI.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

A (Keep All Articles): Retaining all content, including irrelevant materials, without any filtering makes the system prone to generating answers based on unwanted data.

B (Include in the System Prompt about SnoPen AI): This option doesn’t address irrelevant content directly, and without filtering, the model might still retrieve and use irrelevant data.

D (Consolidating Documents into a Single Chunk): Grouping documents into a single chunk makes the retrieval process less efficient and won’t help filter out irrelevant content effectively.

Therefore, instructing the system in the prompt not to answer questions unrelated to SnoPen AI (option C) is the best approach to ensure the system filters out irrelevant information.

Problem Context: When assessing the safety and effectiveness of LLM outputs in a translation use case, it is essential to ensure that the translations accurately and relevantly convey the intended message. The evaluation should focus on how well the LLM understands and processes different languages and contexts.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: The ability to generate responses in code– This is not relevant to translation quality or safety.

Option B: The similarity to the previous language– While ensuring that translations preserve the original's intent is important, this doesn't directly address the overall quality or safety of the translation.

Option C: The latency of the response and the length of text generated– These operational metrics are less critical in assessing the qualitative aspects of translation safety.

Option D: The accuracy and relevance of the responses– This is crucial in translation to ensure that the translated content is true to the original in meaning and appropriateness. Accuracy and relevance directly impact the effectiveness and safety of translations, especially in sensitive or nuanced contexts.

Thus,Option Dis the most important indicator when evaluating the safety of LLM outputs in translation, focusing on the core aspects that determine the utility and trustworthiness of translated content.

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.

 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 Bis 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.

In a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system, the key to providing relevant responses lies in the quality of the retrieved context. Here’s why option A is the most appropriate solution:

Context Relevance:The RAG model generates answers based on retrieved documents or context. If the retrieved information is about an irrelevant product, it suggests that the retrieval step is failing to select the right context. The Generative AI Engineer must first assess the quality of what is being retrieved and ensure it is pertinent to the query.

Vector Search and Embedding Similarity:RAG typically uses vector search for retrieval, where embeddings of the query are matched against embeddings of product descriptions. Assessing thesemantic similarity searchprocess ensures that the closest matches are actually relevant to the query.

Fine-tuning the Retrieval Process:By improving theretrieval quality, such as tuning the embeddings or adjusting the retrieval strategy, the system can return more accurate and relevant product information.

Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:

B (Caching FAQs): Caching can speed up responses for frequently asked questions but won’t improve the relevance of the retrieved content for less frequent or new queries.

C (Use a Different LLM): Changing the LLM only affects the generation step, not the retrieval process, which is the core issue here.

D (Different Semantic Search Algorithm): This could help, but the first step is to evaluate the current retrieval context before replacing the search algorithm.

Therefore, improving and assessing the quality of the retrieved context (option A) is the first step to fixing the issue of irrelevant product information.

To optimize a chunking strategy for a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) application, the Generative AI Engineer needs a structured approach to evaluating the chunking strategy, ensuring that the chosen configuration retrieves the most relevant information and leads to accurate and coherent LLM responses. Here's whyCandEare the correct strategies:

Strategy C: Evaluation Metrics (Recall, NDCG)

Define an evaluation metric: Common evaluation metrics such as recall, precision, or NDCG (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain) measure how well the retrieved chunks match the user's query and the expected response.

Recallmeasures the proportion of relevant information retrieved.

NDCGis often used when you want to account for both the relevance of retrieved chunks and the ranking or order in which they are retrieved.

Experiment with chunking strategies: Adjusting chunking strategies based on text structure (e.g., splitting by paragraph, chapter, or a fixed number of tokens) allows the engineer to experiment with various ways of slicing the text. Some chunks may better align with the user's query than others.

Evaluate performance: By using recall or NDCG, the engineer can methodically test various chunking strategies to identify which one yields the highest performance. This ensures that the chunking method provides the most relevant information when embedding and retrieving data from the vector store.

Strategy E: LLM-as-a-Judge Metric

Use the LLM as an evaluator: After retrieving chunks, the LLM can be used to evaluate the quality of answers based on the chunks provided. This could be framed as a "judge" function, where the LLM compares how well a given chunk answers previous user queries.

Optimize based on the LLM's judgment: By having the LLM assess previous answers and rate their relevance and accuracy, the engineer can collect feedback on how well different chunking configurations perform in real-world scenarios.

This metric could be a qualitative judgment on how closely the retrieved information matches the user's intent.

Tune chunking parameters: Based on the LLM's judgment, the engineer can adjust the chunk size or structure to better align with the LLM's responses, optimizing retrieval for future queries.

By combining these two approaches, the engineer ensures that the chunking strategy is systematically evaluated using both quantitative (recall/NDCG) and qualitative (LLM judgment) methods. This balanced optimization process results in improved retrieval relevance and, consequently, better response generation by the LLM.

Problem Context: The problem involves matching team members to new projects based on two main factors:

Availability: Ensure the team members are available during the project dates.

Profile-Project Match: Use the employee profiles (unstructured text) to find the best match for a project’s scope (also unstructured text).

The two main inputs are theemployee profilesandproject scopes, both of which are unstructured. This means traditional rule-based systems (e.g., simple keyword matching) would be inefficient, especially when working with large datasets.

Explanation of Options: Let's break down the provided options to understand why D is the most optimal answer.

Option Asuggests embedding project scopes into a vector store and then performing retrieval using team member profiles. While embedding project scopes into a vector store is a valid technique, it skips an important detail: the focus should primarily be on embedding employee profiles because we're matching the profiles to a new project, not the other way around.

Option Binvolves using a large language model (LLM) to extract keywords from the project scope and perform keyword matching on employee profiles. While LLMs can help with keyword extraction, this approach is too simplistic and doesn’t leverage advanced retrieval techniques like vector embeddings, which can handle the nuanced and rich semantics of unstructured data. This approach may miss out on subtle but important similarities.

Option Csuggests calculating a similarity score between each team member's profile and project scope. While this is a good idea, it doesn’t specify how to handle the unstructured nature of data efficiently. Iterating through each member’s profile individually could be computationally expensive in large teams. It also lacks the mention of using a vector store or an efficient retrieval mechanism.

Option Dis the correct approach. Here’s why:

Embedding team profiles into a vector store: Using a vector store allows for efficient similarity searches on unstructured data. Embedding the team member profiles into vectors captures their semantics in a way that is far more flexible than keyword-based matching.

Using project scope for retrieval: Instead of matching keywords, this approach suggests using vector embeddings and similarity search algorithms (e.g., cosine similarity) to find the team members whose profiles most closely align with the project scope.

Filtering based on availability: Once the best-matched candidates are retrieved based on profile similarity, filtering them by availability ensures that the system provides a practically useful result.

This method efficiently handles large-scale datasets by leveragingvector embeddingsandsimilarity searchtechniques, both of which are fundamental tools inGenerative AI engineeringfor handling unstructured text.

Technical References:

Vector embeddings: In this approach, the unstructured text (employee profiles and project scopes) is converted into high-dimensional vectors using pretrained models (e.g., BERT, Sentence-BERT, or custom embeddings). These embeddings capture the semantic meaning of the text, making it easier to perform similarity-based retrieval.

Vector stores: Solutions likeFAISSorMilvusallow storing and retrieving large numbers of vector embeddings quickly. This is critical when working with large teams where querying through individual profiles sequentially would be inefficient.

LLM Integration: Large language models can assist in generating embeddings for both employee profiles and project scopes. They can also assist in fine-tuning similarity measures, ensuring that the retrieval system captures the nuances of the text data.

Filtering: After retrieving the most similar profiles based on the project scope, filtering based on availability ensures that only team members who are free for the project are considered.

This system is scalable, efficient, and makes use of the latest techniques inGenerative AI, such as vector embeddings and semantic search.

Problem Context: The engineer needs to extract text from PDF documents, which may contain both text and images. The goal is to find a Python package that simplifies this task using the least amount of code.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: flask: Flask is a web framework for Python, not suitable for processing or extracting content from PDFs.

Option B: beautifulsoup: Beautiful Soup is designed for parsing HTML and XML documents, not PDFs.

Option C: unstructured: This Python package is specifically designed to work with unstructured data, including extracting text from PDFs. It provides functionalities to handle various types of content in documents with minimal coding, making it ideal for the task.

Option D: numpy: Numpy is a powerful library for numerical computing in Python and does not provide any tools for text extraction from PDFs.

Given the requirement,Option C(unstructured) is the most appropriate as it directly addresses the need to efficiently extract text from PDF documents with minimal code.

The goal is to make fine-tuned LLMs from a production (prod) Databricks workspace available for testing in a development (dev) workspace, leveraging Unity Catalog and MLflow, while ensuring cost-effectiveness and security. Let’s analyze the options.

Option A: Use an external model registry which can be accessed from all workspaces

An external registry adds cost (e.g., hosting fees) and complexity (e.g., integration, security configurations) outside Databricks’ native ecosystem, reducing security compared to Unity Catalog’s governance.

Databricks Reference:"Unity Catalog provides a centralized, secure model registry within Databricks"("Unity Catalog Documentation," 2023).

Option B: Setup a script to export the model from prod and import it to dev

Export/import scripts require manual effort, storage for model artifacts, and repeated execution, increasing operational cost and risk (e.g., version mismatches, unsecured transfers). It’s less efficient than a native solution.

Databricks Reference: Manual processes are discouraged when Unity Catalog offers built-in sharing:"Avoid redundant workflows with Unity Catalog’s cross-workspace access"("MLflow with Unity Catalog").

Option C: Setup a duplicate training pipeline in dev, so that an identical model is available in dev

Duplicating the training pipeline doubles compute and storage costs, as it retrains the model from scratch. It’s neither cost-effective nor necessary when the prod model can be reused securely.

Databricks Reference:"Re-running training is resource-intensive; leverage existing models where possible"("Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Option D: Use MLflow to log the model directly into Unity Catalog, and enable READ access in the dev workspace to the model

Unity Catalog, integrated with MLflow, allows models logged in prod to be centrally managed and accessed across workspaces with fine-grained permissions (e.g., READ for dev). This is cost-effective (no extra infrastructure or retraining) and secure (governed by Databricks’ access controls).

Databricks Reference:"Log models to Unity Catalog via MLflow, then grant access to other workspaces securely"("MLflow Model Registry with Unity Catalog," 2023).

Conclusion: Option D leverages Databricks’ native tools (MLflow and Unity Catalog) for a seamless, cost-effective, and secure solution, avoiding external systems, manual scripts, or redundant training.

The task requires an LLM pipeline for multi-stage reasoning with external tools, necessitating planning, adaptability, and complex reasoning. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks’ recommendations for advanced LLM workflows.

Option A: Train the LLM to generate a single, comprehensive response without interacting with any external tools, relying solely on its pre-trained knowledge

This approach limits the LLM to its static knowledge base, excluding external tools and multi-stage reasoning. It can’t adapt or plan actions dynamically, failing the requirements.

Databricks Reference:"External tools enhance LLM capabilities beyond pre-trained knowledge"("Building LLM Applications with Databricks," 2023).

Option B: Implement a framework like ReAct which allows the LLM to generate reasoning traces and perform task-specific actions that leverage external tools if necessary

ReAct (Reasoning + Acting) combines reasoning traces (step-by-step logic) with actions (e.g., tool calls), enabling the LLM to plan, adapt, and execute complex tasks iteratively. This meets all requirements: multi-stage reasoning, tool use, and adaptability.

Databricks Reference:"Frameworks like ReAct enable LLMs to interleave reasoning and external tool interactions for complex problem-solving"("Generative AI Cookbook," 2023).

Option C: Encourage the LLM to make multiple API calls in sequence without planning or structuring the calls, allowing the LLM to decide when and how to use external tools spontaneously

Unstructured, spontaneous API calls lack planning and may lead to inefficient or incorrect tool usage. This doesn’t ensure effective multi-stage reasoning or adaptability.

Databricks Reference: Structured frameworks are preferred:"Ad-hoc tool calls can reduce reliability in complex tasks"("Building LLM-Powered Applications").

Option D: Use a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting technique to guide the LLM through a series of reasoning steps, then manually input the results from external tools for the final answer

CoT improves reasoning but relies on manual tool interaction, breaking automation and adaptability. It’s not a scalable pipeline solution.

Databricks Reference:"Manual intervention is impractical for production LLM pipelines"("Databricks Generative AI Engineer Guide").

Conclusion: Option B (ReAct) is the best approach, as it integrates reasoning and tool use in a structured, adaptive framework, aligning with Databricks’ guidance for complex LLM workflows.

When addressing concerns of hallucination and data leakage in an LLM application for internal company policies, fine-tuning the model on internal data with the hope it learns data boundaries can be problematic:

Risk of Data Leakage: Fine-tuning on sensitive or confidential data does not guarantee that the model will not inadvertently include or reference this data in its outputs. There’s a risk of overfitting to the specific data details, which might lead to unintended leakage.

Hallucination: Fine-tuning does not necessarily mitigate the model's tendency to hallucinate; in fact, it might exacerbate it if the training data is not comprehensive or representative of all potential queries.

Better Approaches:

A,C, andDinvolve setting up operational safeguards and constraints that directly address data leakage and ensure responses are aligned with specific user needs and security levels.

Fine-tuning lacks the targeted control needed for such sensitive applications and can introduce new risks, making it an unsuitable approach in this context.

Problem Context: The goal is to deploy a trained LLM on Databricks in the simplest and most integrated manner.

Explanation of Options:

Option A: This method involves unnecessary steps like logging the model as a pickle object, which is not the most efficient path in a Databricks environment.

Option B: Logging the model with MLflow during training and then using MLflow’s API to register and start serving the model is straightforward and leverages Databricks’ built-in functionalities for seamless model deployment.

Option C: Building and running a Docker container is a complex and less integrated approach within the Databricks ecosystem.

Option D: Using Flask and Gunicorn is a more manual approach and less integrated compared to the native capabilities of Databricks and MLflow.

OptionBprovides the most straightforward and efficient process, utilizing Databricks’ ecosystem to its full advantage for deploying models.

The task is to deploy an LLM application using Foundation Model APIs in a production environment while adhering to security best practices. Authentication is critical for securing access to Databricks resources, such as the Foundation Model API. Let’s evaluate the options based on Databricks’ security guidelines for production scenarios.

Option A: Use an access token belonging to service principals

Service principals are non-human identities designed for automated workflows and applications in Databricks. Using an access token tied to a service principal ensures that the authentication is scoped to the application, follows least-privilege principles (via role-based access control), and avoids reliance on individual user credentials. This is a security best practice for production deployments.

Databricks Reference:"For production applications, use service principals with access tokens to authenticate securely, avoiding user-specific credentials"("Databricks Security Best Practices," 2023). Additionally, the "Foundation Model API Documentation" states:"Service principal tokens are recommended for programmatic access to Foundation Model APIs."

Option B: Use a frequently rotated access token belonging to either a workspace user or a service principal

Frequent rotation enhances security by limiting token exposure, but tying the token to a workspace user introduces risks (e.g., user account changes, broader permissions). Including both user and service principal options dilutes the focus on application-specific security, making this less ideal than a service-principal-only approach. It also adds operational overhead without clear benefits over Option A.

Databricks Reference:"While token rotation is a good practice, service principals are preferred over user accounts for application authentication"("Managing Tokens in Databricks," 2023).

Option C: Use OAuth machine-to-machine authentication

OAuth M2M (e.g., client credentials flow) is a secure method for application-to-service communication, often using service principals under the hood. However, Databricks’ Foundation Model API primarily supports personal access tokens (PATs) or service principal tokens over full OAuth flows for simplicity in production setups. OAuth M2M adds complexity (e.g., managing refresh tokens) without a clear advantage in this context.

Databricks Reference:"OAuth is supported in Databricks, but service principal tokens are simpler and sufficient for most API-based workloads"("Databricks Authentication Guide," 2023).

Option D: Use an access token belonging to any workspace user

Using a user’s access token ties the application to an individual’s identity, violating security best practices. It risks exposure if the user leaves, changes roles, or has overly broad permissions, and it’s not scalable or auditable for production.

Databricks Reference:"Avoid using personal user tokens for production applications due to security and governance concerns"("Databricks Security Best Practices," 2023).

Conclusion: Option A is the best choice, as it uses a service principal’s access token, aligning with Databricks’ security best practices for production LLM applications. It ensures secure, application-specific authentication with minimal complexity, as explicitly recommended for Foundation Model API deployments.