retrieval

The concept underneath every RAG system you'll ever deploy. How to explain vectors, cosine similarity, and the one limitation of embeddings that costs real deployments accuracy.

The same operation scores attention and ranks your RAG results. Knowing exactly what the dot product measures, and when its magnitude term quietly breaks your retrieval, is what separates a working pipeline from a mysteriously bad one.

Truncate? Summarize? Rerank? Map-reduce? A production problem every RAG deployment hits, with a menu of fixes interviewers expect you to weigh, plus the diagnostic question to ask first.

Cosine similarity finds topically close, not correct. The failure taxonomy behind most RAG accuracy complaints, and the hybrid-search + reranker fix stack interviewers expect you to know cold.

Million-token windows didn't kill RAG; they changed when you reach for it. The decision rule that holds up in production, and the silent failure each option hides behind a confident answer.

The warm-up that filters out tutorial-level candidates. Interviewers aren't grading the diagram, they're grading whether you know the three places real pipelines fail and how you'd see it happening.

Everyone says '500 tokens with overlap.' The candidates who get hired explain why chunk boundaries are a recall problem, name three strategies, and describe the experiment that picks between them.

Pure vector search fails on the exact queries enterprise users ask most: IDs, error codes, product names. Here's the failure-mode framing that turns a definition question into a design answer.

The retrieval design question with a precise rubric: candidates who can say what each stage rescues, and what it costs in latency, clear it. Includes the RRF detail and the latency budget interviewers ask for.

Three plausible fixes, one decision framework. Interviewers grade the ordering (cheapest-reversible first) and whether you can say what each option costs in data, time, and operational burden.

A multi-hop question over a property graph is a query-generation problem, not a similarity-search one. The staff-level move is grounding generation in the live schema and closing an auto-healing loop on the DB's own error messages.

Self-correcting RAG is easy to demo and easy to ruin. The discipline is a gate that grades evidence before drafting, a termination rule that is not just a loop cap, and a metric that proves correction adds facts rather than fluff.

Slides are the worst RAG corpus: text in shapes, meaning in charts, the message in the image. A query like 'the blue bar chart with Q3 revenue' fails if you embed only the extracted text, and citing the wrong slide number kills trust instantly.

Everyone reaches for a bigger machine. The two mechanisms that actually cause this both scale with corpus size, both hit the tail before the median, and one of them is the permission filter your security review insisted on.

Vectors from two versions of an embedding model are not comparable, and nothing in the stack will tell you so. The cosine between the same document's old and new vector is roughly zero, which is why a half-finished migration returns confident nonsense at full speed.

Everyone computes the stale fraction as a share of the corpus, gets 0.03%, and moves on. Weighted by queries rather than documents it is 1.4%, roughly fifty times larger, because the documents that changed during the rebuild are the ones people are asking about.

The eval set says recall fell 2.3 points, which is inside the noise you would expect from a re-index. Support says the product got worse. Both are right, and the reason is that one document class lost 49 points of recall while everything else improved slightly.

A reranker cannot promote a document the retriever never returned, which makes candidate-set recall a hard ceiling on the entire exercise. Compute the ceiling and the disappointment becomes arithmetic: three points of headroom were available, twelve were sitting upstream, and the latency was an implementation detail.

Brute force is O(N*d) per query and dies at ten million vectors. The answer is approximate nearest neighbor: trade a little recall for orders of magnitude less work, and know exactly which knob buys what.

The arithmetic is three sums; the signal is what you do when a vector is all zeros and the denominator vanishes. The warm-up that gates every RAG and retrieval coding round.

Triplet loss contrasts an anchor against one negative; modern contrastive losses like InfoNCE contrast against a whole batch at once, which is why CLIP-style training scales and old triplet pipelines stalled. The mining problem, the batch-size lever, and the call interviewers want.

A search box is a recommender with a strong prior: the query. The hard parts are understanding ambiguous intent, retrieving in two stages under a tight latency budget, and learning from clicks without teaching the model that whatever you showed first is best.