Pass the Oracle Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 1z0-1127-25 Questions and answers with CertsForce

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:

In-context learning is a capability of LLMs where the model adapts to a task by interpreting instructions or examples provided in the input prompt, without additional training. This leverages the model’s pre-trained knowledge, making Option C correct. Option A refers to domain-specific pretraining, not in-context learning. Option B involves reinforcement learning, a different training paradigm. Option D pertains to architectural changes, not learning via context.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely discusses in-context learning in sections on prompt-based customization.

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 LLMs, "hallucination" refers to the generation of plausible-sounding but factually incorrect or irrelevant content, often presented with confidence. This occurs due to the model’s reliance on patterns in training data rather than factual grounding, making Option D correct. Option A describes a positive trait, not hallucination. Option B is unrelated, as hallucination isn’t a performance-enhancing technique. Option C pertains to multimodal models, not the general definition of hallucination in LLMs.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely addresses hallucination under model limitations or evaluation metrics.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Frequency penalties reduce the likelihood of repeating tokens that have already appeared in the output, based on their frequency, to enhance diversity and avoid repetition. This makes Option B correct. Option A is the opposite effect. Option C describes a different mechanism (e.g., presence penalty in some contexts). Option D is inaccurate, as penalties aren’t random but frequency-based.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely covers frequency penalties under output control parameters.

Below is the next batch of 10 questions (11–20) from your list, formatted as requested with detailed explanations. These answers are based on widely accepted principles in generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs), aligned with what is likely reflected in the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) 2025 Generative AI documentation. Typographical errors have been corrected for clarity.

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:

In LangChain, memory stores contextual data (e.g., chat history) and provides mechanisms to summarize or recall past interactions, enabling coherent, context-aware conversations. This makes Option B correct. Option A is too limited, as memory does more than just input/output handling. Option C is unrelated, as memory focuses on interaction context, not abstract calculations. Option D is inaccurate, as memory is dynamic, not a static database. Memory is crucial for stateful applications.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely discusses memory under LangChain’s context management features.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Soft prompting (e.g., prompt tuning) involves adding trainable parameters (soft prompts) to an LLM’s input while keeping the model’s weights frozen, adapting it to tasks without task-specific retraining. This is efficient when fine-tuning or large datasets aren’t feasible, making Option C correct. Option A suits full fine-tuning, not soft prompting, which avoids extensive labeled data needs. Option B could apply, but domain adaptation often requires more than soft prompting (e.g., fine-tuning). Option D describes continued pretraining, not soft prompting. Soft prompting excels in low-resource customization.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely discusses soft prompting under parameter-efficient methods.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

The “temperature” parameter adjusts the randomness of an LLM’s output by scaling the softmax distribution—low values (e.g., 0.7) make it more deterministic, high values (e.g., 1.5) increase creativity—Option A is correct. Option B (stop string) is the stop sequence. Option C (penalty) relates to presence/frequency penalties. Option D (max tokens) is a separate parameter. Temperature shapes output style.

OCI 2025 Generative AI documentation likely defines temperature under generation parameters.

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.