Glean Applied AI Engineer interview questions

Models are trained to be helpful, which quietly trains them to never refuse. Getting honest abstention back is a system problem, not a prompt tweak. Here is the stack that actually moves the refuse-when-unsure rate.

Few-shot accuracy can swing on example order alone. If your prompt is fragile to things that shouldn't matter, the fix is structural, not lucky example-hunting. Here is what actually reduces variance.

A VLM that reads an invoice wrong and a VLM that reads it right and reasons wrong produce the same end-to-end score, and they need opposite fixes. Here is how to decompose a multimodal eval, build the set from real traffic, and probe for the hallucinations that accuracy never catches.

The modal Applied AI design round. Anyone can draw embed-retrieve-generate. The signal is in chunking, hybrid retrieval, the rerank/latency tradeoff, and how you prove it works. Here is the structure that scores.

The two knobs that make or break a RAG system, and the ones candidates hand-wave. The signal is tuning chunking against recall and knowing exactly what dense retrieval misses that BM25 catches. Here is the reasoning, not the rules of thumb.

Most RAG systems ship with no real eval, which is why most RAG systems quietly degrade. The signal is decomposing evaluation into retrieval and generation, and measuring faithfulness separately from relevance. Here is the framework that makes RAG improvements measurable.

Enterprise RAG fails on isolation, not retrieval quality. The signal is enforcing tenant and document-level permissions server-side, at retrieval time, so the model can never surface data a user cannot see. Here is the design that survives a security review.

A 2025-2026 question that catches 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 choosing.

Every RAG system rests on a vector index, and the interviewer wants to know you understand the recall/latency/memory tradeoff, not just 'use a vector DB.' The signal is why exact search does not scale and how HNSW and IVF make different bets.

Retrieval quality is capped by the query, and raw user queries are often bad for search. The signal is knowing the techniques that rewrite the query before retrieval and which failure each fixes.

Vector RAG quietly fails on two query shapes: multi-hop chains and global 'what are the themes' questions. The signal is knowing exactly what the graph buys you and the construction bill it charges.

Always retrieving is wasteful and sometimes harmful; never retrieving hallucinates. Self-RAG makes retrieval a decision the model controls, then critiques what it got back. The signal is the retrieve-on-demand plus self-critique loop.

Chunking quietly sets the ceiling on 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 decouples retrieval size from context size.

Citations turn a RAG answer from 'trust me' into something verifiable, and they are a real engineering problem. The signal is grounding each claim to a specific passage and verifying the attribution, not appending a bag of links at the end.

Real corpora contradict themselves (old vs new policy, different teams), and naive RAG silently picks one or blends them into a wrong answer. The signal is detecting conflict and resolving it by recency, authority, and transparency.

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

Dense vs sparse is the core retrieval tradeoff, and 'just use embeddings' silently loses every exact-match query. The signal is knowing what each representation captures and why production blends them. Here is the answer.

Garbage parsing means garbage retrieval, and naive PDF text extraction destroys tables and reading order. The signal is fixing the parser, not the retriever. Here is the answer.

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

RAG and agents get expensive and slow fast: retrieval plus reranking plus big-model calls, multiplied across agent steps. The signal is naming the dominant cost first, then the levers that actually move it. Here is the playbook.

Reranking is the cheapest large win in RAG quality: retrieve broadly, then reorder 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 misses exact terms; pure keyword search misses meaning. The signal is knowing why each fails alone and how to merge two rankings on incomparable scales without hand-tuning weights. Here is the answer.

Single-shot retrieval fails on questions that chain facts ('who directed the highest-grossing film of 2019?'). The signal is decomposing or iterating retrieval instead of retrieving once, and guarding against errors compounding across hops. Here is the answer.

A RAG system is only as current as its index, and stale or duplicated content silently degrades answers. The signal is an incremental pipeline with deletes, updates, and recency signals, not a one-time bulk load. Here is the answer.

Forcing every query through the same pipeline burns 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 keep a misroute from sinking the answer.

A short question and the passage that answers it live in different neighborhoods of embedding space. HyDE closes that gap by embedding a fake answer instead of the question. The signal is knowing why a wrong hypothetical still retrieves the right docs.

Small chunks match precisely but starve the LLM of context; big chunks have context but match badly. Parent-child retrieval refuses to pick. The signal is decoupling what you match on from what you feed the model.

A chunk embedded in isolation forgets which document, section, and entity it came from, so it retrieves poorly. Contextual retrieval writes that context back in before indexing. The signal is fixing retrieval at index time, not query time.

Fixed-size chunking splits 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.

Standard RAG retrieves once and generates; agentic RAG turns retrieval into an iterative, reasoning-driven loop. The signal is the agent deciding whether, what, and when to retrieve, then re-retrieving until the evidence holds.

Standard RAG trusts whatever it retrieves, even when it's irrelevant. Corrective RAG grades retrieval quality and acts on it. The signal is the grade-then-correct loop: re-retrieve, fall back to web search, or discard.

RAG failures are usually retrieval failures, yet most teams only measure the final answer. The signal is scoring retrieval on its own (recall@k, precision@k, MRR/nDCG) to isolate exactly where the system breaks.

Late chunking flips the usual order of operations to fix the lost-context problem without a single extra LLM call. The whole signal is which step happens first. Here is the answer.

At a billion vectors the index choice is a memory budget problem before it's a recall problem. Flat search is out, HNSW may not fit, and PQ trades recall for RAM. Here is the decision a staff engineer makes on the whiteboard.

A model that tops MTEB can still flop on your jargon-heavy corpus, and most teams jump straight to the expensive fix. There is a ladder, and the cheap rungs are the ones people skip. Here is the order to climb it.

Top-k by pure similarity often hands the model five paraphrases of the same paragraph, starving it of the other facts the question needs. The fix is ranking for relevance and novelty at once. Here is how.

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

When the right answer isn't even in the top-50, the generator can't save 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 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 90% eval score and angry users at the same time means your eval set doesn't look like reality. The fix is to make evaluation track production, not the other way around. Here is how.

A bridge between classic DSA and modern RAG. The signal is building a working inverted index and a correct BM25 score by hand, reasoning about its complexity, and then knowing exactly when you would reach for embeddings and an ANN index instead.

A single embedding can't represent a question with three independent parts. The signal is knowing 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 generates a fake answer to embed, which helps on vague queries but actively hurts on factual or out-of-domain ones. The signal is naming exactly when the hypothetical document misleads retrieval and which multi-draft and hybrid variants recover.

Re-embedding 10M documents nightly is wasteful when only 0.5% changed. The signal is upserting by stable id, handling deletes and tombstones in an ANN index, and compacting before fragmentation tanks recall and latency.

An LLM can cite a source that does not say what the answer claims. The signal is checking claim-by-claim entailment against the cited text, not just that a citation marker exists, and knowing what to do when grounding fails.

Cranking up top-k raises recall but drowns the answer in noise, and a tight reranker raises precision but can drop the one chunk you needed. The signal is knowing which metric caps the system and how to move both with a retrieve-wide-then-rerank shape.

Hybrid retrieval only beats either method if the fusion is tuned. The signal is knowing why you cannot just 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 has jargon and relevance rules it never saw. The signal is knowing when fine-tuning pays off, how to mine hard negatives, and how to avoid training a reranker that just memorizes your retriever's mistakes.

A better embedding model is useless 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 rotting.

Most people know MCP exposes tools. The deeper signal is the full primitive set (resources, prompts, sampling, roots) and the patterns: server composition, sampling for nested LLM calls, and scoping access safely.

A 0.87 cosine score on a chunk that answers nothing is not a bug in your vector database. It is the embedding model telling you exactly what it was trained to tell you. Here is how to read that signal instead of thresholding it away.

The most role-defining judgment call in Applied AI: a shiny benchmark number against the operational price of a system nobody can debug at 2am. Most candidates ship on the number and lose the loop there. Here is the answer that passes.

The core operation under every embedding/RAG retrieval, asked as a coding exercise. The signal is vectorizing the similarity, normalizing correctly, and using a partial selection (argpartition) instead of a full sort. Here is the efficient implementation and the scaling follow-up.

The coding round version of the RAG question every candidate can describe in prose. Embed, index, retrieve, generate, cite. What separates a pass from a fail is the branch you write for when retrieval comes back with nothing worth quoting.

Everyone can recite the chunking tradeoff. Far fewer can write the splitter, keep the offsets a citation needs, and answer the question that kills the fixed splitter: what happens to a fact that straddles a boundary.

Enterprise search lives or dies on permissions, freshness, and connecting to thirty messy SaaS sources; retrieval quality is table stakes. Learn how to fan out across connectors, enforce per-user access at query time, and blend lexical with vector search for results people trust.

An enterprise RAG that retrieves across everyone's documents is a breach waiting to happen. The fix lives in the retrieval layer, not the prompt. Here is the design that survives a security review.

AI features open cross-tenant leak paths that classic SaaS isolation never had to think about: shared embeddings, shared caches, and fine-tunes that memorize. One leak ends an enterprise contract. Here is the isolation model.

A hijacked agent does not need a 'send email' tool to leak secrets. A rendered markdown image, a URL parameter, or a DNS lookup is enough. The signal is enumerating the covert channels and locking down egress, not just tools.

Asking the model to keep secrets or enforce permissions is asking the wrong component. The signal is enforcing access control before retrieval, in code you trust, and treating the LLM as untrusted compute over already-authorized data.

An agent running on one over-privileged service account is a confused deputy waiting to happen. The signal is per-user delegated credentials, token exchange, per-tool scopes, and an audit trail that names the human. Here is the answer.

Hype sets customers up to expect a system that reads minds and never errs. Resetting that without losing the deal is an applied-AI skill interviewers probe directly. Here is the move.

Most AI pilots fail not on the model but on scoping: vague success criteria, the wrong use case, or data that was never ready. For forward-deployed and applied roles, running a pilot well is the job. Here is the playbook.

The model can be excellent and still fail if the people who must use it don't trust it. Adoption is change management, not a better demo. Here is how forward-deployed engineers actually earn it.

An angry customer is a test of composure and ownership, not just empathy. Interviewers want to see you de-escalate, fix the real problem, and rebuild trust. Here is the arc that scores.

Almost everyone can quote softmax(QKᵀ/√d_k)V. The interviewer wants the variance argument and the exact training failure the scale prevents. Here is the answer that separates memorization from understanding.

The single most-asked applied GenAI question, and the one most candidates answer as a definition dump. The interviewer wants a decision framework with a default and the conditions that flip it. Here is the call that scores.

MoE is why some frontier models have huge parameter counts but serve cheaply. The signal is the sparse-activation idea, the routing mechanism, and the operational cost (memory, load balancing) that the FLOP savings quietly hide.

These are the knobs every LLM product tunes, and the interviewer wants to know what each does to the probability distribution and which setting fits which task. Including why factual and creative tasks want opposite settings.

Agents are over-applied. The strong answer resists the hype: most tasks want a single structured call, and agents earn their cost only under specific conditions. Here is when to reach for one and how to stop it from compounding errors.

Applied AI rarely waits for certainty, and companies (Amazon's Bias for Action, NVIDIA's speed) test whether you can act decisively without freezing or being reckless. The signal is a reversible, well-reasoned call with a plan to validate. Here is the arc that lands.

Alignment is now table stakes even outside 'safety' roles. The interviewer wants the three-stage RLHF pipeline and a crisp account of why DPO dropped the reward model entirely. Here is the answer with the mechanism, not the buzzwords.

Tokenization looks like plumbing until it explains your bill, your latency, and why the model fumbles numbers and rare languages. The signal is knowing how subword tokenizers work and the consequences that fall out of them.