逐日AI

面试题库

共 328 题,当前筛选 1 题。

标签
还有 235 个标签
#idempotency5#streaming5#structured-output5#chunking4#deployment4#distributed-systems4#rag4#system-prompt4#tool-calling4#client3#embeddings3#failure-modes3#ingestion3#mcp3#message-bus3#operations3#progressive-disclosure3#ranking3#timeline3#agent-loop2#agentic-rag2#agents-sdk2#caching2#citations2#code-review2#communication2#concurrency2#consistency2#context2#context-engineering2#context-rot2#cost-control2#data-modeling2#grounding2#hybrid-search2#langgraph2#latency2#model-migration2#model-routing2#multi-agent2#ordering2#pipeline-design2#prompt-basics2#prompt-engineering2#protocol2#rate-limiting2#react2#redis-streams2#responses-api2#retrieval2#retrieval-quality2#routing2#runtime2#sse2#state-management2#statelessness2#subagents2#system-design2#tool-design2#tooling2#tracing2#trade-offs2#transport2#vector-database2#versioning2#workflow2#abstention1#access-control1#agent-design1#agent-quality1#altitude1#approvals1#async1#async-task1#atomicity1#attention-budget1#auth1#av-sync1#behavioral1#bm251#candidate-selection1#capacity-planning1#chain-of-thought1#checkpointing1#ci1#citation-verification1#claude-code1#cli-design1#cloud1#compaction1#compression1#content-hash1#context-compression1#context-window1#contextual-retrieval1#cost-optimization1#cross-model1#dag1#data-quality1#database1#decision-making1#decomposition1#degradation1#deliberate-practice1#design1#diagnostics1#dimensions1#distribution1#docker1#documentation1#engineering-judgement1#engineering-tradeoffs1#eval1#event-driven1#fallback1#fan-out1#ffmpeg1#forking1#four-elements1#framework-design1#framework-selection1#golden-set1#hallucination1#handoffs1#headless1#hnsw1#hybrid1#hyde1#image-generation1#incremental-recompute1#incremental-sync1#index-maintenance1#index-routing1#indexing1#information-retrieval1#instruction-hierarchy1#intent-routing1#interrupt-merge1#interview-prep1#invalidation1#isolation1#ivfflat1#just-in-time1#knowledge-organization1#lease1#llm-as-judge1#llm-output-quality1#long-context1#loop-guard1#media-pipeline1#metadata1#metrics1#mobile1#model-selection1#multi-tenancy1#multimodal1#nodejs1#orchestration1#pagination1#parent-child1#pdf-parsing1#performance1#permissions1#persistence1#pgvector1#pipeline-reliability1#portfolio1#prioritization1#production-readiness1#prompt-assembly1#prompt-caching1#prompt-injection1#prompt-limits1#prompt-techniques1#prompt-template1#prompt-versioning1#provider-abstraction1#quality-check1#quantization1#query-transformation1#quiet-hours1#rank-fusion1#reasoning1#recall1#redis1#reflection1#refusal1#reporting1#reproducibility1#rerank1#retrieval-failure1#retrieval-metrics1#retry1#retry-semantics1#retry-strategy1#review1#rollback1#sandbox1#sandboxing1#scalability1#scheduling1#schema-design1#scoping1#scripts1#secrets-management1#self-assessment1#self-presentation1#self-reflection1#service-architecture1#session-management1#sessions1#sharding1#skill-authoring1#skill-description1#skills1#spec1#state-machine1#stateless1#stopping-criteria1#subtitles1#task-graph1#team-governance1#testing1#tool-budget1#tool-execution1#tool-naming1#tools1#tts1#tuning1#ux1#validation1#vector-index1#verification1#workflow-engine1#xml-tags1

30 天从前端工程师到 Agent 工程师

D24 RAG 进阶:hybrid search、rerank、引用、recall 评估

  • 两路检索结果怎么合并?为什么不能直接加权求和?How do you merge two retrieval rankings, and why not just take a weighted sum of the scores?
    国内高频海外高频进阶#rag#rrf#ranking

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 题眼在后半句。前半句答「RRF」谁都会,后半句「为什么不能加权求和」才是筛人的地方——它考的是你有没有真的看过两路分数的分布。
    2. 怎么拆:先问自己两个分数是不是同一个量纲。余弦相似度有界(0 到 1)且分布密集,同一批候选常常只差 0.02;BM25 无上界,命中几个稀有词就能到 12 分。**不同量纲的数相加,等于让量纲大的那一路单方面决定结果**,权重只是在调「它说了算的程度」。
    3. 更麻烦的是它不稳定:权重在这批语料上调好了,换一批语料分布就变了,得重调。这是一个永远还不完的技术债。
    4. 结论:改用名次。RRF 把每一路的名次折算成 `1/(k + rank)` 再相加,k 取 60。名次是无量纲的,不需要任何标定。k 的作用是压平头部差距,让「两路都进前列」压过「一路排第一」——共识优先于单点自信。
    5. 一个能当场手算的例子很加分:两路排名 [a,b,c] 与 [c,d,a],a 得 1/61 + 1/63 ≈ 0.0323;而分数直接相加的版本会把 BM25 里 12 分的 c 顶到第一。
    6. 可预期的追问:同分了怎么办?必须显式定序(比如按 id),否则结果取决于哈希表遍历顺序,同一份输入在不同语言、不同运行里给出不同排序——评估集量出来的数字也就不可复现了。这一条答出来会非常加分,因为它说明你真的跑过多次。

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. The second half is the real question. Anyone can say 'RRF'; explaining why weighted sums fail is what separates people who have looked at the score distributions.
    2. Decompose it: are the two scores even the same unit? Cosine similarity is bounded in 0 to 1 and tightly clustered — candidates often differ by 0.02. BM25 is unbounded and a few rare-term hits reach 12. Adding them lets the larger-magnitude channel decide everything; the weight only tunes how much it dominates.
    3. Worse, it is unstable. Weights tuned on one corpus drift on the next, so you re-tune forever.
    4. Conclusion: fuse ranks, not scores. RRF maps each rank to 1/(k + rank) and sums, with k = 60. Ranks are unitless and need no calibration. k flattens the head of the list so that 'top-ranked in both channels' beats 'first in one channel' — consensus over single-source confidence.
    5. A hand-checkable example helps: rankings [a,b,c] and [c,d,a] give a = 1/61 + 1/63 ≈ 0.0323, while a raw score sum promotes c on the strength of its BM25 12.
    6. Expected follow-up: what about ties? You must break them explicitly, e.g. by id. Otherwise ordering depends on hash-map iteration order and differs across languages and runs, which makes your evaluation numbers irreproducible. Mentioning this signals you actually ran it more than once.

    答题要点

    • 用 RRF:每一路的名次折算成 1/(k + rank) 再相加,k 取 60。
    • 不能加权求和是因为两个分数量纲不同——余弦有界密集、BM25 无上界,相加等于让 BM25 单方面决定结果。
    • 而且权重不可迁移:这批语料调好,换一批就得重调,是还不完的债。
    • 名次是无量纲的,不需要标定;k 压平头部差距,让两路共识压过单路自信。
    • 同分必须显式定序(按 id),否则结果依赖哈希表遍历顺序,评估数字不可复现。

    Key points

    • Use RRF: map each channel's rank to 1/(k + rank) and sum, with k = 60.
    • Weighted sums fail because the scores are different units — bounded, tightly clustered cosine versus unbounded BM25, so BM25 decides the outcome.
    • Weights also do not transfer: tuned on one corpus, they drift on the next.
    • Ranks are unitless and need no calibration; k flattens the head so cross-channel consensus outweighs single-channel confidence.
    • Break ties explicitly (by id) or ordering depends on hash iteration order and your evaluation numbers stop being reproducible.