面试题库
共 328 题,当前筛选 1 题。
课程全部30 天从前端工程师到 Agent 工程师5 天提示词工程零基础Claude 高效使用:从对话到 Claude CodeCodex 与 OpenAI Agents SDK 高效使用7 天 MCP:把工具接进任何 Agent7 天 Agent Skills:把经验做成可复用能力5 天上下文工程14 天 RAG:从检索到可信回答14 天用 Agent 搭一条 AI 短剧生产线
标签
全部#rrf1#evaluation30#cost29#reliability24#architecture22#agent-skills21#security18#observability15#streaming12#error-handling11#idempotency10#system-design10
还有 359 个标签收起标签
#api-design9#coding-agent9#distributed-systems8#multi-agent8#rag8#chunking7#debugging7#pipeline-design7#structured-output7#agent-loop6#mcp6#operations6#prompt-injection6#sse6#tool-calling6#tool-design6#context5#context-engineering5#deployment5#embeddings5#hybrid-search5#message-bus5#scheduling5#system-prompt5#agentic-rag4#behavioral4#client4#concurrency4#consistency4#framework-design4#ingestion4#prompt-engineering4#rate-limiting4#retrieval4#routing4#trade-offs4#abstention3#agents-sdk3#caching3#communication3#context-window3#cost-control3#data-quality3#failure-modes3#image-generation3#interview-prep3#langgraph3#latency3#llm-as-judge3#llm-basics3#long-context3#model-migration3#model-routing3#orchestration3#ordering3#progressive-disclosure3#prompt-basics3#prompt-caching3#protocol3#provider-abstraction3#ranking3#recall3#redis-streams3#responses-api3#resume3#retry3#runtime3#scalability3#skills3#state-management3#statelessness3#subagents3#timeline3#versioning3#workflow-engine3#access-control2#agent-design2#async-task2#auth2#checkpointing2#citation-verification2#citations2#claude-md2#code-review2#compaction2#context-rot2#contextual-retrieval2#cost-tradeoff2#data-modeling2#database2#distribution2#fallback2#ffmpeg2#golden-set2#grounding2#interview-process2#long-term-memory2#media-pipeline2#memory2#multi-hop2#multi-tenancy2#oauth2#prioritization2#project-storytelling2#prompt-techniques2#query-rewriting2#react2#refusal2#reproducibility2#rerank2#retrieval-quality2#retrospective2#scripts2#sharding2#state-machine2#tool-permissions2#tooling2#tools2#tracing2#transport2#tts2#ux2#vector-database2#verification2#workflow2#agent-basics1#agent-quality1#agent-sdk1#agents-md1#altitude1#analytics1#approvals1#architecture-review1#async1#atomicity1#attention-budget1#av-sync1#backoff1#bi-encoder1#bm251#budget-control1#build-vs-buy1#cancellation1#candidate-selection1#capacity-planning1#career1#chain-of-thought1#ci1#circuit-breaker1#claude-code1#cli-design1#client-integration1#cloud1#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#coreference1#correctness1#cost-accounting1#cost-analysis1#cost-optimization1#cross-encoder1#cross-model1#customer-support1#dag1#decision-making1#decomposition1#degradation1#deliberate-practice1#design1#diagnostics1#dimensions1#docker1#documentation1#embedding-migration1#encoding1#engineering-judgement1#engineering-tradeoffs1#error-propagation1#escalation1#eval1#event-driven1#evidence1#failure-analysis1#fairness1#faithfulness1#fan-out1#feedback-loop1#fencing-token1#few-shot1#filter-pushdown1#filtering1#fine-tuning1#forking1#four-elements1#framework-selection1#frontend1#global-market1#graph-rag1#guardrails1#hallucination1#handoff1#handoffs1#headless1#hnsw1#hooks1#human-in-the-loop1#hybrid1#hyde1#incremental-recompute1#incremental-sync1#index-maintenance1#index-routing1#indexing1#information-retrieval1#instruction-hierarchy1#integration1#intent-routing1#interrupt-merge1#invalidation1#isolation1#iterative-scan1#ivfflat1#json-parsing1#json-schema1#just-in-time1#jwt1#knowledge-organization1#latency-budget1#lease1#least-privilege1#llm-output-quality1#long-session1#loop-guard1#maintenance1#mcp-basics1#mental-model1#messages-api1#metadata1#methodology1#metrics1#migration1#mobile1#model-selection1#moderation1#modularity1#multi-turn1#multimodal1#nodejs1#normalisation1#notifications1#ocr1#offline-testing1#openai1#overlap1#pagination1#parent-child1#pdf-parsing1#performance1#permissions1#persistence1#pgvector1#pipeline-reliability1#portfolio1#primitives1#priority-queue1#proactive-messaging1#product-engineering1#production-readiness1#prompt1#prompt-assembly1#prompt-bloat1#prompt-design1#prompt-limits1#prompt-surface1#prompt-template1#prompt-versioning1#prompting1#protocol-versions1#quality1#quality-check1#quantization1#query-transformation1#quiet-hours1#rag-basics1#rank-fusion1#reasoning1#reconnect1#redis1#reflection1#replay1#reporting1#retrieval-failure1#retrieval-metrics1#retry-semantics1#retry-strategy1#review1#risk-assessment1#rollback1#rollout1#safety1#sampling1#sandbox1#sandboxing1#scaling1#schema-design1#schema-validation1#scoping1#secrets-management1#self-assessment1#self-introduction1#self-presentation1#self-reflection1#server-design1#service-architecture1#session-management1#sessions1#similarity1#skill-authoring1#skill-description1#skill-design1#spec1#split-brain1#stakeholder-communication1#star1#state-persistence1#stateless1#stdio-transport1#stopping-criteria1#storytelling1#subagent1#subscriptions1#subtitles1#task-graph1#team-governance1#test-set1#test-strategy1#testing1#thresholds1#timezone1#token-accounting1#token-budget1#tool-budget1#tool-execution1#tool-naming1#tool-schema1#trust-boundary1#tuning1#validation1#vector-index1#workflow-design1#xml-tags1#zero-downtime1
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
- 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。
- 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」。
- 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。
- 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。
- 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。
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Worse, it is unstable. Weights tuned on one corpus drift on the next, so you re-tune forever.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.