AI-103の実践教材を使用することで、以前に想像していた以上の成果を絶対に得ることができます。 AI-103の実際のテストを選択した顧客から収集された明確なデータがあり、合格率は98〜100％です。 したがって、成功を収めるチャンスは、AI-103ブレインダンプ資料によって大幅に増加します。 さらに、一連の利点があります。 したがって、AI-103の実際のテストの重要性は言うまでもありません。 今すぐご注文いただいた場合、1年間無料の更新をお送りします。
| Section | Objectives |
|---|---|
| Topic 1: Implement Natural Language Processing Solutions | - Language understanding and intent recognition - Translation and multilingual support - Text analytics and summarization |
| Topic 2: Develop Generative AI Applications and Agents | - AI agents architecture
|
| Topic 3: Plan and Manage Azure AI Solutions | - Model selection and lifecycle management - Responsible AI principles and governance - Azure AI resource provisioning and configuration |
| Topic 4: Implement Computer Vision Solutions | - Image classification and object detection - OCR and document intelligence |
| Topic 5: Knowledge Mining and Information Retrieval | - Indexing and semantic search - RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) patterns - Azure AI Search configuration |
今多くのIT技術会社は職員がMicrosoftのAI-103資格認定を持つのを要求します。MicrosoftのAI-103試験に合格するのは必要なことになります。速く試験に合格して資格認証を取得したいなら、我々CertShikenのAI-103問題集を使ってみてください。弊社はあなたに相応しくて品質高いAI-103問題集を提供します。また、あなたの持っている問題集は一年間の無料更新を得られています。あなたは十分の時間でAI-103試験を準備することができます。
質問 # 43
Hotspot Question
You have a Microsoft Foundry project that contains an agent.
The agent accepts user-uploaded screenshots and uses a multimodal chat model.
Some screenshots contain potentially malicious embedded text.
You need to prevent a prompt injection attack and ensure that third-party content is treated as lower trust.
How should you configure prompt shields for document attacks? To answer, select the appropriate options in the answer area.
NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.
正解：
解説：
質問 # 44
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 # 45
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：A
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 # 46
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 AI 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 image moderation to block unsafe content before processing the images.
Does this meet the goal?
正解：A
解説：
The solution does not fully meet the goal. Image moderation is appropriate for one part of the risk: blocking unsafe image content before the image is processed. Azure AI Content Safety provides image APIs that detect harmful content, and its harm categories and severity levels can be used to classify and block objectionable image content. This addresses unsafe photos, but it does not address hidden instructions embedded in images.
The second risk is prompt manipulation through extracted image text. After OCR extracts text from the uploaded image, that text becomes untrusted third-party content supplied to a generative model. Microsoft defines document attacks as malicious instructions embedded in third-party content, where the objective is to cause the model to execute unintended commands or alter intended behavior. Prompt Shields are the control designed to detect user prompt attacks and document attacks, including indirect attacks that come from uploaded or referenced content.
Therefore, image moderation alone is incomplete. A complete mitigation would combine image moderation for harmful visual content with Prompt Shields for document attacks, and optionally Spotlighting, so extracted or embedded text is treated as lower trust. Reference topics: Azure AI Content Safety, image moderation, Prompt Shields, document attacks, indirect prompt injection, and multimodal safety.
質問 # 47
You have a Microsoft Foundry project.
You plan to build a customer support solution that contains an agent. The solution must meet the following requirements:
- Provide accurate, context-aware responses grounded in internal
product documentation stored in Azure AI Search.
- Require deep, multi-step reasoning across long contexts.
- Generate detailed natural language responses.
Which type of model should you use to power the agent?
正解：B
解説：
For a support agent requiring deep multi-step reasoning, long context processing, and strict grounding in internal documents, the GPT-5.5 (or GPT-5.5-Pro) model from the Azure AI Foundry model catalog is the best choice.
Here is how GPT-5.5 directly addresses the requirements:
Deep Multi-Step Reasoning: These frontier models use deliberate reasoning and iterative planning before generating a response. This allows the agent to decompose complex support queries, analyze alternatives, and prevent hallucinations without requiring heavy custom prompt engineering.
Grounded, Accurate Responses:
Rather than doing this alone, pair the model with Foundry IQ connected to your Azure AI Search indices. Foundry IQ's agentic retrieval engine will pull exactly the right context, allowing GPT-5.5 to synthesize the answer and cite the original documentation.
Long Context Handling:
GPT-5.5 models support massive context windows, allowing them to ingest extensive previous conversational turns alongside detailed internal documentation in a single pass without losing track of important rules.
Note:
GPT-5.5 is a large language model (LLM).While it is a flagship LLM built on OpenAI's advanced transformer architecture, it also features natively omnimodal capabilities that allow it to process both text and images seamlessly within a single unified framework. However, when choosing between the specific categories provided, its primary core classification is a Large Language Model (LLM).
Key Details About GPT-5.5
Core Architecture: Large Language Model (LLM) built by OpenAI.
Primary Focus: Highly optimized for complex reasoning, multi-step problem solving, coding, and autonomous agentic workflows.
Input/Output Capabilities: Supports text and image inputs with text-based outputs.
Reference:
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/reasoning
質問 # 48
......
MicrosoftのAI-103試験に合格するのは難しいですが、合格できるのはあなたの能力を証明できるだけでなく、国際的な認可を得られます。MicrosoftのAI-103試験の準備は重要です。我々CertShikenの研究したMicrosoftのAI-103の復習資料は科学的な方法であなたの圧力を減少します。
AI-103試験解説: https://www.certshiken.com/AI-103-shiken.html