retrieval

RAG and fine-tuning get cast as either/or. RAFT trains the model to be good at RAG itself. The tell is what goes into the training set: relevant docs mixed with distractors. Here is the answer.

A model that claims a million-token window may not actually exploit it. The signal is knowing needle-in-a-haystack, where it fails, and how to probe genuine multi-fact reasoning across the entire context. Here is the answer.

A single trained embedding you can cut to any length and still use. The signal is the nested-prefix training objective and the coarse-to-fine retrieval win it enables at scale. Here is the answer.

Modern embedding models expect a task instruction prepended to the text, and a wrong prefix quietly wrecks retrieval. The signal is why instructions help and the asymmetric query/passage convention.

Appending every turn is the default in tutorial code and it fails twice: on the context window and on cost. The signal is the layered assembly, the constraints you refuse to let the summarizer touch, and what you do the moment the user changes subject.

Truncate, map-reduce, refine, retrieve, or stuff a long-context model. Each buys you something different and breaks differently. The candidates who score are the ones who pick based on the question being asked, not the document being read.

Three different systems are failing at once (the tokenizer, the model, and your pipeline) and most candidates blur them into one. Separating them tells you which fix buys the most, and the highest-leverage one is not the prompt.

One of the most common AI, ML, and GenAI design rounds. Sketching embed-retrieve-generate is easy; the signal lives in chunking, hybrid retrieval, the rerank/latency tradeoff, and how you prove it works. Here is the structure that scores.

A 2025-2026 question that trips up people clinging to dogma in either direction. The signal is a cost, latency, accuracy, and scale tradeoff, plus knowing the 'lost in the middle' failure of long context. Here is the framework for deciding.

Conversations and agent tasks grow past the context window, and the naive 'stuff the whole history' approach breaks on cost, latency, and lost-in-the-middle. The signal is a tiered memory design: recent buffer, summarized mid-term, retrieved long-term.

Retrieval quality is bounded by the query, and raw user queries are frequently poor for search. The signal is knowing the techniques that rewrite the query ahead of retrieval and which failure each one fixes.

Vector RAG quietly breaks on two query shapes: multi-hop chains and global 'what are the themes' questions. The signal is knowing precisely what the graph gives you and the construction cost it demands.

Retrieving every time is wasteful and occasionally harmful; retrieving never leads to hallucination. Self-RAG turns retrieval into a decision the model controls, then critiques what came back. The signal is the retrieve-on-demand plus self-critique loop.

Chunking quietly caps RAG quality, and 'split every 500 tokens' leaves recall on the table. The signal is knowing the strategy families and the parent-child trick that separates retrieval size from context size.

Context engineering is the discipline that took over from 'prompt engineering' for serious agent work. The signal is grasping that what you place in the context window (and what you omit) shapes behavior more than clever wording. Here is the answer.

The embedding model is the base of retrieval, and swapping it is deceptively risky. The signal is choosing on domain-relevant retrieval quality (not a leaderboard) and knowing that a new model means re-embedding everything. Here is the answer.

Real documents carry images, charts, and tables, not only text, and text-only RAG quietly drops them. The signal is knowing the two retrieval approaches and why the generator has to change too. Here is the answer.

Reranking is the cheapest large win in RAG quality: pull a broad set, then reorder it precisely. The signal is the bi-encoder-versus-cross-encoder distinction and the retrieve-then-rerank two-stage design. Here is the answer.

Pure vector search drops exact terms; pure keyword search drops meaning. The signal is understanding why each fails on its own and how to merge two rankings on incomparable scales without hand-tuning weights. Here is the answer.

Late interaction reaches cross-encoder-like quality with near-bi-encoder scalability. The signal is the per-token embeddings plus MaxSim matching that earns you the middle ground, and understanding what it costs. Here is the answer.

Pushing every query through one pipeline wastes latency, money, and precision. A router decides what each query actually needs. The signal is naming the four decisions a router makes and how you stop a misroute from sinking the answer.

A short question and the passage that answers it sit in different neighborhoods of embedding space. HyDE bridges that gap by embedding a fake answer rather than the question. The signal is understanding why a wrong hypothetical still retrieves the right docs.

Small chunks match precisely but starve the LLM of context; big chunks carry context but match badly. Parent-child retrieval declines to choose. The signal is separating what you match on from what you feed the model.

Fixed-size chunking cuts a coherent idea mid-thought; semantic chunking splits on meaning. The signal is naming the methods (structure-aware, embedding-similarity, LLM-based) and the tradeoffs that decide which one to ship.

Late chunking reverses the usual order of operations to solve the lost-context problem with zero additional LLM calls. Everything hinges on which step runs first. Here is the answer.

A model that leads MTEB can still stumble on your jargon-heavy corpus, and most teams reach straight for the costly fix. There is a ladder, and the cheap rungs are the ones people skip. Here is the order to climb it.

Top-k by raw similarity often feeds the model five paraphrases of one paragraph, denying it the other facts the question needs. The fix is ranking for relevance and novelty together. Here is how.

Real users type 'what about the new policy?' with no context. Retrieving on those four words yields noise. Here is how strong systems disambiguate before they ever reach the retriever.

When the right answer isn't even in the top-50, the generator can't rescue you. Low recall has a short list of usual suspects. Here is the order to check them so you fix the cause, not a symptom.

More chunks means higher recall but also more noise, more cost, and more lost-in-the-middle. The right k is an empirical tradeoff, not a default of 5. Here is how to find it.

A bridge connecting classic DSA and modern RAG. Interviewers want to see you build a working inverted index and a correct BM25 score by hand, reason about its complexity, and then know precisely when you would switch to embeddings and an ANN index instead.

Late interaction keeps one vector per token, so a corpus that fit in a few GB as single vectors can swell 100x. Interviewers want to see you know the compression and indexing tricks (centroids, residuals, PLAID) that make multi-vector retrieval shippable.

A single embedding cannot capture a question with three independent parts. Interviewers want to see you know when to split a query, how to retrieve and recombine per sub-query, and the latency and drift costs that make decomposition a net loss on simple questions.

HyDE produces a fake answer to embed, which helps on vague queries but actively hurts on factual or out-of-domain ones. Interviewers want to hear you name precisely when the hypothetical document misleads retrieval and which multi-draft and hybrid variants recover.

Splitting source files every 500 characters slices functions in half and wrecks retrieval. Interviewers want to see you chunk on syntax, retrieve by symbol and dependency, and blend lexical exact-match with semantic search the way code search actually needs.

Hybrid retrieval only beats either method when the fusion is tuned. The signal is knowing why you cannot simply add BM25 and cosine scores, how RRF's k constant behaves, and when a learned weight beats rank fusion.

An off-the-shelf cross-encoder is general; your domain carries jargon and relevance rules it never encountered. The signal is knowing when fine-tuning pays off, how to mine hard negatives, and how to avoid training a reranker that merely memorizes your retriever's mistakes.

A better embedding model is worthless if old and new vectors share an index, because their spaces are incompatible. The signal is the dual-index re-embed-then-cutover plan, the cost math, and how to prove the new model is actually better before you flip.

A context window is not memory. Real agents need a storage architecture: working buffer, episodic recall, and consolidated facts. The signal is the read/write paths and how you keep memory from decaying.

Six stages, six isolating experiments, six metrics. The candidates who score do not guess at knobs, they bisect the pipeline, and they instrument the rungs nobody else does: ranking, context assembly, generation.

Every RAG system starts here, and most candidates ship the same bug: they size the chunk in characters and call it tokens. Below is running code for all four strategies, plus the infinite loop in the overlap arithmetic and the one in the recursion.

Anyone can call a rerank endpoint. The word doing the work in this question is 'prove': you have to implement DCG, ideal DCG, and nDCG@k from graded labels and report the before-and-after. Plus the ceiling nobody mentions until it bites them in production.

Everyone can write the happy path. The screen is decided by the two branches most candidates skip: what the system does when retrieval finds nothing good, and what it does when the model cites a chunk you never sent.

The most common ML system design round. Interviewers reward the funnel structure: candidate generation, then ranking, then re-ranking, with the right model at each stage plus an honest plan for cold start, freshness, and feedback loops. This lays out that structure.

Multimodal search checks whether you grasp shared embedding spaces and the retrieve-then-rank pattern under a real catalog's scale and freshness. What interviewers reward: CLIP-style joint embeddings, hybrid retrieval, and honest relevance evaluation. This lays out the design.

Cross-session memory is what makes an assistant feel personal, and it is mostly a retrieval and state-management problem rather than a bigger context window. The signal is the tiered architecture plus what to store, forget, and protect.

How large recommenders and search draw candidates from millions of items in milliseconds. The signal is why the user and item towers stay separate, how that enables precomputed embeddings plus an ANN index, and where ranking takes over.

The service under every RAG stack and semantic search box. The signal is your ANN index choice and how you deal with the three things that quietly break it: metadata filtering, live updates, and scale.

Personalizing an LLM is a retrieval and memory problem, not a per-user fine-tune. Learn how to assemble user context at request time, keep long-term memory from bloating the prompt, and respect privacy and the right to be forgotten.

Selling RAG as a product means wrangling messy ingestion, multi-tenant isolation, and per-customer index freshness, all behind a simple API. See the ingestion and query planes, how to keep tenants isolated, and how to hand customers eval and observability.

A search box is a recommender carrying a strong prior: the query. The difficult pieces are reading ambiguous intent, retrieving in two stages within a tight latency budget, and learning from clicks without teaching the model that whatever appeared first is best.