多くの受験者にとって、AI-103試験資格証明書を取得することは簡単ではないです。AI-103試験に合格するには、たくさん時間と精力が必要です。しかし、Microsoft AI-103試験参考書を選ばれば、試験に合格するだけでなく、時間を節約できます。だから、Microsoft AI-103試験参考書を早く購入しましょう！
| Section | Weight | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| Topic 1: Implement computer vision solutions | 10–15% | - Build multimodal solutions
|
| Topic 2: Implement generative AI and agentic solutions | 30–35% | - Build generative AI applications
|
| Topic 3: Implement information extraction and knowledge mining | 10–15% | - Build knowledge bases and search solutions
|
| Topic 4: Plan and manage Azure AI solutions | 25–30% | - Design Azure AI infrastructure
|
| Topic 5: Implement text and speech analysis solutions | 10–15% | - Implement speech capabilities
|
AI-103準備資料は、資格認定の優れた支援者となります。 一度だけ試験をクリアできるように、世界中で高品質な認定AI-103学習ガイドを提供することに集中しています。 AI-103信頼性の高い試験ブートキャンプ資料には、PDFバージョン、ソフトテストエンジン、APPテストエンジンの3つの形式が含まれているため、当社の製品はさまざまな受験者の習慣を満たし、実際のAI-103テストのほぼ完全な質問と回答をカバーします。
質問 # 76
You have a Microsoft Foundry agent that grounds responses from an Azure Search index that contains the following:
- Searchable text fields for product names and product codes
- A vector field that stores embeddings for product descriptions
You need to ensure that users can query the index by using the following:
- Exact product names or codes
- Natural language descriptions of the products
What should you configure?
正解：D
解説：
To meet your requirements, you need to configure a Hybrid Search with Semantic Ranking in Azure AI Search. This setup combines keyword matching for exact identifiers with vector search for natural language queries, delivering the most accurate grounding data to your Microsoft Foundry agent.
Reference:
https://www.tredence.com/blog/searchsmart-enhancing-rag-with-azure-ai-search-service
質問 # 77
A production application authenticates to Microsoft Foundry using an API key stored in an environment variable. Your security team requires that you remove hardcoded secrets and enable per-principal auditing of every call. Which approach meets both requirements?
正解：C
解説：
Keyless authentication with Microsoft Entra ID issues short-lived OAuth bearer tokens scoped per principal, which removes hardcoded secrets and produces per-principal audit trails. A managed identity extends this to service-to-service calls without storing any credential in code or configuration.
質問 # 78
You have a Microsoft Foundry project that ingests scanned PDF invoices stored in Azure Blob Storage. Each invoice contains printed fine items and has a table-based layout.
Extracted results are stored as structured JSON and used as grounding data for an agent in a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) solution.
You need to create a single analyzer that meets the following requirements:
- Extracts the invoice number, invoice date, vendor name, and total
amount across varying templates
- Returns confidence scores so that results with confidence below 0.80
can be routed for supervisor review
What should you use?
正解：A
解説：
The best option in this scenario is a custom Azure Content Understanding in Foundry Tools analyzer that defines the required fields as the extracted fields and the returned confidence scores for routing.
Custom Field Targeting with Confidence Scores: Azure Content Understanding allows you to build a document analyzer with a user-defined schema. By defining your required fields (InvoiceNumber, InvoiceDate, VendorName, and TotalAmount), the service will handle extraction across varying layouts and return a dedicated field-level confidence score. You can natively evaluate these confidence metrics to implement your supervisor routing workflow.
RAG-Ready Output Structure: The service naturally returns highly structured JSON payloads.
This makes it perfectly optimized to be ingested directly as grounding data for a Retrieval- Augmented Generation (RAG) agent.
Incorrect:
[Not C]
The prebuilt-layout analyzer extracts raw structural elements such as blocks of text, hierarchy, selection marks, and complete tables. It does not automatically classify or cleanly isolate specific target entities (like vendor name or total amount) into dedicated schema properties, leaving you with heavy post-processing work to isolate the text.
[Not D]
The prebuilt-documentSearch analyzer is optimized for broad, layout-aware text extraction for indexing. Relying on Azure AI Search's search.score for supervisor routing is conceptually flawed; search.score represents a relevance score for a search query ranking rather than an accuracy metric for data extraction confidence.
Reference:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/content-understanding/document/analyzer-improvement
質問 # 79
Note: This section contains one or more sets of questions with the same scenario and problem. Each question presents a unique solution to the problem. You must determine whether the solution meets the stated goals. More than one solution in the set might solve the problem. It is also possible that none of the solutions in the set solve the problem.
After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return. As a result, these questions do not appear on the Review Screen.
You have a multimodal Al generative model that accepts image uploads and uses extracted image text to generate responses.
You discover that users can upload unsafe images and embed hidden instructions into images to manipulate the model.
You need to implement controls to mitigate the risk.
Solution: You configure protected material detection.
Does this meet the goal?
正解：B
解説：
The solution does not meet the goal. Protected material detection is intended to identify large language model output that matches known protected text or code, such as copyrighted text, selected web content, song lyrics, articles, recipes, or code. Microsoft describes protected material detection as a control for preventing AI- generated content from reproducing known protected material, not as a control for image safety or prompt injection.
The stated risk has two parts: users can upload unsafe images, and users can embed hidden instructions in images to manipulate the model. Unsafe image uploads require image moderation, because Azure AI Content Safety provides image APIs that detect harmful content across modalities and can support blocking decisions by harm category and severity. Hidden instructions extracted from images are indirect prompt injection or document attacks; Microsoft Prompt Shields are the capability designed to detect user prompt attacks and document attacks, including harmful instructions embedded in third-party content.
Therefore, protected material detection alone does not mitigate either primary risk. Reference topics: Azure AI Content Safety, image moderation, Prompt Shields, document attacks, indirect prompt injection, and protected material detection.
Topic 1, Case Study Contoso, Ltd
Overview
Contoso, Ltd is a multinational retail company that builds, deploys, and manages generative Al and agent- based solutions by using Microsoft Foundry.
Identity Environment:
Contoso uses Microsoft Entra ID for identity management, authentication, and authorization capabilities that enable agents to access organizational resources and services.
Contoso recently formed a new Al engineering team named Agent1Dev Team to optimize and maintain existing Al solutions.
The team collaborates with solution architects, DevOps engineers, and security engineers to design, implement, monitor, and secure Al applications.
Contoso also has a team named Agent1Test Team that is responsible for validating Al solutions before the solution deployments.
Generative Environment:
Contoso has a Microsoft Foundry deployment that contains two projects named Project1 and Project2.
Project1
Project1 contains a customer support agent named Agent1 that assists customers with product inquiries and troubleshooting requests.
Agent1 has the following configurations:
* Agent1 uses a base model deployment.
* A safety evaluation pipeline is NOT enabled.
* Tool invocation approval workflows are NOT enabled.
* Conversation memory constraints are NOT configured.
Agent1 interacts with customers by using digital support channels and answers general questions about Contoso products.
Project1 is deployed to an Azure region located in the European Union (EU).
Agent1Dev Team will use Project1 to optimize and maintain Agent1.
Project2
Project2 contains a deployed video generation model. The marketing department at Contoso has access to Project2 and plans to use the model to develop a video creation solution.
Development of the solution is incomplete.
Data Environment:
Contoso stores product-related information in Azure resources that support Al applications.
The Azure environment contains an Azure Blob Storage account named storage1 that stores product detail sheets for all the Contoso products.
The product sheets include specifications, feature descriptions, and product support information that Agent1 can use to answer customer questions. The product sheets are stored in the PDF format.
Problem Statement:
Contoso identifies the following issues:
* Agent1 has only general knowledge of the Contoso products.
* A recent chat interaction with Agent1 was analyzed for sentiment. The results of the analysis have NOT been processed yet.
* Agent1 does NOT use the detailed product information in the product sheets stored in storage1 when responding to customer questions.
* The finance department at Contoso reports that vendor invoices must be reviewed manually to ensure that the invoices match the terms defined in the vendor contracts. The invoices contain tables, logos, and varied layouts that make the documents difficult to process consistently.
Requirement:
Planned Changes:
Contoso plans to implement the following changes:
* Implement a solution for Project1 that analyzes the vendor invoices by evaluating both the visual layout and the textual content of the invoices, so that the invoice details can be verified against the vendor contract terms.
* Update the base model deployment used by Agent1 and standardize the model version to ensure continuity and consistent responses.
* Enable Agent1 to retrieve and use the detailed product information from the product sheets stored in storage1.
* Implement an indexing solution for the product sheets that Agent1 can use to answer customer questions.
* Complete the development of the video creation solution.
Technical Requirements:
Contoso identifies the following technical requirements:
* The model deployment used by Agent1 must support scalable, high-throughput generative Al workloads and dynamically scale to handle variable customer support traffic, without requiring reserved throughput capacity.
* The product sheets must be processed by using an indexing pipeline that enables semantic and vector search, so that Agent1 can retrieve the relevant product information.
* Responses generated by using the product sheet information must be relevant, complete, and accurate.
* Agent1 must be able to use the product sheets to answer natural language questions about product details.
* The model version used by Agent1 must remain consistent to ensure stable responses.
* The data processed by the model must remain within the EU.
Safety and Compliance Requirements:
Contoso identifies the following security and compliance requirements:
* API keys must NOT be used to access Foundry-deployed models.
* Access to the Azure resources must follow the principle of least privilege.
* The developers at Contoso must authenticate to Microsoft Foundry resources by using Microsoft Entra authentication.
* Access to Project1 must be assigned to the members of Agent1Dev Team by using a security group named SC_Agent1_Dev.
* Access to Project1 must be assigned to the members of Agent1Test Team by using a security group named SC_Agent1_Test.
* Agent1 must never reveal customer information, even if a document that contains customer data is added erroneously to the product sheet repository in storage1.
* The product sheets might contain images that include embedded text. Agent1 must be protected from malicious instructions potentially hidden within the images.
Business Information:
Contoso identifies the following business requirements:
* Users that interact with Agent1 must have a personalized experience in future interactions, including the ability for Agent1 to retain conversation context and recall relevant information from previous interactions.
* Agent1 must answer questions only about the products sold by Contoso.
質問 # 80
You have a Microsoft Foundry project that contains a customer support agent grounded in internal documentation.
After a recent update, users report the following issues:
* Some answers are unsupported by retrieved documents.
* A small number of responses are flagged for policy violations.
You need to evaluate each issue.
Which observability signals should you use for each issue? To answer, drag the appropriate observability signals to the correct issues. Each observability signal may be used once, more than once, or not at all. You may need to drag the split bar between panes or scroll to view content.
NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.
正解：
解説：
Explanation:
Unsupported responses: Groundedness evaluation metrics
Policy violations: Risk and safety metrics
For unsupported responses, use Groundedness evaluation metrics . In a Retrieval Augmented Generation scenario, the key question is whether the generated answer is supported by the retrieved context. Microsoft Foundry built-in evaluators define Groundedness as the RAG metric that measures how grounded a response is in retrieved context and returns a model-based score; Groundedness Pro evaluates whether the response is grounded in retrieved context by using Azure AI Content Safety. This directly matches answers that are unsupported by internal documentation.
For policy violations, use Risk and safety metrics . Microsoft Foundry risk and safety evaluators assess generated responses for safety risks such as hate and unfairness, sexual content, violence, self-harm, protected material, indirect attacks, code vulnerability, ungrounded attributes, prohibited actions, and sensitive data leakage. The guidance states that these evaluators assign risk and safety severity or pass/fail outcomes for AI responses and agent behavior.
Latency breakdown traces diagnose performance, not correctness or policy compliance. Token usage analytics diagnose cost and prompt/response size, not unsupported claims or safety violations. Reference topics:
Microsoft Foundry observability, RAG evaluators, groundedness, risk and safety evaluators, and agent quality evaluation.
質問 # 81
......
当社Microsoftの専門家は、AI-103トレーニング資料を毎日更新し、最新の更新をタイムリーに提供します。当社の製品および購入手順に関する疑問または質問がある場合は、いつでも当社のオンライン顧客サービス担当者にご連絡ください。古いクライアントに割引を提供します。購入前にAI-103テスト問題を無料でダウンロードして試用できます。したがって、当社の製品には多くのメリットがあります。 AI-103試験問題を購入する前に、無料デモでAI-103模擬テストの特性と機能を知ることができます。
AI-103最新資料: https://www.goshiken.com/Microsoft/AI-103-mondaishu.html