Visit here for our full Amazon AWS Certified Machine Learning Engineer – Associate MLA-C01 exam dumps and practice test questions
Question 181
A company is deploying a machine learning model for real-time fraud detection. The model needs to process transactions with latency under 100 milliseconds while handling variable traffic patterns. Which SageMaker inference option best meets these requirements?
A) SageMaker real-time endpoints with auto-scaling
B) SageMaker Batch Transform
C) SageMaker Processing Jobs
D) AWS Lambda with stored model artifacts
Answer: A
Explanation:
SageMaker real-time endpoints with auto-scaling provide the optimal solution for low-latency fraud detection with variable traffic patterns. Real-time endpoints deliver predictions with latency typically in the tens of milliseconds, easily meeting the 100-millisecond requirement. These endpoints maintain persistent infrastructure with models loaded in memory for immediate inference without cold start delays. Auto-scaling policies automatically adjust instance counts based on metrics like invocation rate or CPU utilization, seamlessly handling traffic fluctuations from hundreds to thousands of transactions per second. During traffic spikes, additional instances launch automatically; during quiet periods, instances scale down to reduce costs. Real-time endpoints support multiple instance types including GPU-accelerated instances for complex models, provide high availability across multiple availability zones, and integrate with CloudWatch for monitoring latency and throughput metrics. The combination of consistent low latency and elastic scaling makes real-time endpoints ideal for fraud detection requiring immediate decisions on each transaction. This makes A the correct answer for low-latency variable-traffic inference.
B is incorrect because SageMaker Batch Transform processes large datasets offline in batches rather than providing real-time predictions. Batch Transform launches compute resources, processes all records, writes results to S3, then terminates, making it suitable for periodic scoring but entirely inappropriate for real-time fraud detection requiring immediate transaction decisions with sub-100ms latency.
C is incorrect because SageMaker Processing Jobs execute data preprocessing, feature engineering, or model evaluation tasks as batch operations. Processing Jobs are designed for data preparation workflows rather than serving real-time predictions, and they cannot meet the latency requirements for transaction-by-transaction fraud detection.
D is incorrect because while AWS Lambda could theoretically host model inference, Lambda has cold start latency when functions are invoked after idle periods, making consistent sub-100ms latency difficult to guarantee. Lambda’s 15-minute maximum execution time, memory constraints, and lack of GPU support limit its effectiveness for complex models requiring low-latency, high-throughput inference.
Question 182
A data scientist is training a deep learning model on SageMaker but notices that training is taking significantly longer than expected. The training job uses a single ml.p3.2xlarge instance with one GPU. What is the most effective way to reduce training time?
A) Use SageMaker distributed training across multiple GPU instances
B) Reduce the batch size
C) Decrease the number of training epochs
D) Switch to a CPU-based instance type
Answer: A
Explanation:
Using SageMaker distributed training across multiple GPU instances is the most effective approach to significantly reduce training time for deep learning models. SageMaker provides distributed training libraries that implement data parallelism and model parallelism strategies, enabling training workloads to scale across multiple instances with multiple GPUs. Data parallelism splits the training dataset across instances, with each instance processing different data batches simultaneously while maintaining synchronized model parameters through efficient gradient aggregation. This approach can reduce training time nearly linearly with the number of instances for many workloads—training on 4 instances might complete in roughly one-quarter the time of single-instance training. Model parallelism partitions large models across multiple GPUs when models exceed single-GPU memory capacity. SageMaker’s distributed training libraries optimize inter-instance communication, minimize synchronization overhead, and support popular frameworks including TensorFlow, PyTorch, and MXNet. By leveraging parallel processing across multiple GPUs, distributed training dramatically accelerates model development without sacrificing model quality. This makes A the correct answer for effectively reducing training time.
B is incorrect because reducing batch size decreases the amount of data processed per training step, which typically increases training time rather than reducing it. Smaller batches mean more gradient updates are needed to process the entire dataset per epoch, resulting in longer overall training duration. While smaller batches might improve model generalization in some cases, they do not address the goal of reducing training time.
C is incorrect because decreasing training epochs reduces the number of times the model sees the complete training dataset, which shortens training time but likely degrades model performance by underttraining. This approach sacrifices model quality for speed rather than maintaining quality while improving efficiency through better resource utilization, making it an inappropriate solution.
D is incorrect because switching to CPU-based instances would dramatically increase training time rather than reduce it. GPUs are specifically designed for parallel matrix operations fundamental to deep learning, providing orders of magnitude faster training than CPUs. Moving from GPU to CPU would be counterproductive for deep learning training performance.
Question 183
An organization needs to ensure their machine learning models comply with data residency requirements that mandate all data and models remain within a specific AWS region. Which configuration ensures compliance?
A) Deploy all SageMaker resources within the required region and enable VPC endpoints
B) Use CloudFront for global distribution
C) Enable cross-region replication
D) Use Route 53 for geographic routing
Answer: A
Explanation:
Deploying all SageMaker resources within the required region and enabling VPC endpoints ensures data residency compliance by keeping all data, training jobs, models, and endpoints within specified geographic boundaries. SageMaker resources including training jobs, endpoints, notebook instances, and model artifacts are region-specific and do not automatically replicate across regions. By configuring all components within the compliant region and using VPC endpoints for AWS service access, all data remains within the region boundary without traversing public internet or other regions. VPC endpoints provide private connectivity to AWS services like S3 within the same region, ensuring data transfers occur entirely within regional infrastructure. Organizations can implement IAM policies preventing resource creation in non-compliant regions, use AWS Organizations service control policies for enforcement, and enable AWS Config rules monitoring regional resource deployment. This architecture ensures training data, model artifacts, inference requests, and predictions never leave the designated region, satisfying regulatory requirements like GDPR data residency mandates. This makes A the correct answer for ensuring regional data residency compliance.
B is incorrect because CloudFront is a content delivery network that distributes content globally across edge locations in multiple countries and regions. Using CloudFront would violate data residency requirements by replicating data to edge locations outside the specified region, directly contradicting compliance objectives.
C is incorrect because enabling cross-region replication explicitly copies data to other AWS regions, which directly violates data residency requirements mandating that data remain within specific geographic boundaries. Cross-region replication is useful for disaster recovery but incompatible with strict regional data residency mandates.
D is incorrect because Route 53 provides DNS routing services including geographic routing capabilities, but it does not enforce data residency or prevent data from being stored or processed in non-compliant regions. Route 53 directs traffic but does not constrain where resources are deployed or data is stored.
Question 184
A machine learning team needs to version control their training code, track experiments, and collaborate on model development. Which combination of AWS services best supports this MLOps workflow?
A) AWS CodeCommit for version control and SageMaker Experiments for tracking
B) Amazon S3 for storage and CloudWatch for logging
C) Amazon DynamoDB for metadata and Lambda for automation
D) AWS Backup for versioning and SNS for notifications
Answer: A
Explanation:
AWS CodeCommit for version control combined with SageMaker Experiments for tracking provides comprehensive support for MLOps workflows requiring code versioning, experiment tracking, and team collaboration. CodeCommit is a fully managed Git-based source control service that enables teams to store training scripts, feature engineering code, model evaluation logic, and deployment configurations with complete version history, branching, pull requests, and code reviews. Team members can collaborate through standard Git workflows with access control managed through IAM policies. SageMaker Experiments automatically tracks training runs, capturing parameters, hyperparameters, metrics, model artifacts, and data sources for each experiment, organizing them hierarchically for comparison and analysis. Data scientists can compare multiple training runs to identify best-performing configurations, reproduce previous experiments with complete parameter history, and share results with team members through SageMaker Studio’s visual interface. This combination provides professional software development practices (version control) with specialized machine learning capabilities (experiment tracking), enabling efficient collaboration and reproducible research. This makes A the correct answer for supporting comprehensive MLOps workflows.
B is incorrect because while Amazon S3 can store code and model artifacts and CloudWatch provides logging capabilities, this combination lacks proper version control features like branching, merging, pull requests, and diff comparisons that CodeCommit provides. Additionally, CloudWatch logs do not offer the structured experiment tracking with parameter comparison and metric visualization that SageMaker Experiments delivers.
C is incorrect because Amazon DynamoDB could theoretically store experiment metadata and Lambda could automate workflows, but this combination requires significant custom development to replicate functionality that CodeCommit and SageMaker Experiments provide natively. Building custom experiment tracking systems is inefficient when purpose-built services exist.
D is incorrect because AWS Backup is designed for data protection and disaster recovery through automated backups of AWS resources, not for code version control or experiment tracking. SNS provides notification services but does not support collaboration workflows, code versioning, or experiment comparison required for MLOps.
Question 185
A company is building a recommendation system that needs to store millions of user preference features with sub-10ms retrieval latency for real-time personalization. Which AWS service combination is most appropriate?
A) SageMaker Feature Store with online store enabled
B) Amazon RDS with read replicas
C) Amazon S3 with Transfer Acceleration
D) AWS Glue Data Catalog
Answer: A
Explanation:
SageMaker Feature Store with online store enabled is purpose-built for storing and retrieving machine learning features with single-digit millisecond latency required for real-time personalization. Feature Store provides dual storage modes: online store for low-latency real-time inference and offline store for training and batch inference. The online store uses Amazon DynamoDB or Amazon ElastiCache under the hood, delivering consistent sub-10ms feature retrieval at scale. Feature Store organizes features into feature groups with defined schemas, ensuring consistency between training and inference by using identical features in both contexts, preventing training-serving skew. The service automatically handles feature versioning, point-in-time correct retrieval for historical training, strong consistency guarantees, and seamless integration with SageMaker training and inference workflows. For recommendation systems requiring rapid access to user preferences, item attributes, and contextual features during real-time prediction requests, Feature Store provides the specialized infrastructure needed. Built-in feature discovery and lineage tracking enable teams to share features across projects, avoiding duplicate engineering efforts. This makes A the correct answer for low-latency feature storage supporting real-time recommendations.
B is incorrect because Amazon RDS is optimized for transactional relational database workloads with ACID guarantees rather than the high-throughput, low-latency key-value access patterns required for real-time feature retrieval. While read replicas improve read scalability, RDS lacks machine learning-specific capabilities like feature versioning, point-in-time retrieval, and training-inference consistency management.
C is incorrect because Amazon S3 is object storage optimized for throughput rather than latency, typically providing retrieval times in tens to hundreds of milliseconds rather than sub-10ms. S3 Transfer Acceleration improves upload and download speeds over long distances but does not reduce latency to single-digit milliseconds required for real-time feature access.
D is incorrect because AWS Glue Data Catalog is a metadata repository that stores table schemas and data locations for data discovery and ETL workflows. The Data Catalog provides metadata management but does not store actual feature values or provide low-latency data retrieval capabilities needed for real-time inference.
Question 186
A data scientist discovers that their regression model performs well on training data but poorly on validation data. Training loss continues decreasing while validation loss increases after epoch 10. What technique should be applied to address this issue?
A) Implement early stopping and regularization techniques
B) Increase the learning rate
C) Add more training data without validation
D) Remove features from the dataset
Answer: A
Explanation:
Implementing early stopping and regularization techniques effectively addresses overfitting, which occurs when models learn training data patterns too specifically, including noise, resulting in poor generalization to new data. The described scenario—training loss decreasing while validation loss increases—is the classic signature of overfitting. Early stopping monitors validation performance during training and stops when validation loss stops improving or begins increasing, preventing the model from continuing to overfit training data. This technique automatically identifies the optimal training duration where the model generalizes best. Regularization techniques including L1 (Lasso) and L2 (Ridge) regularization add penalty terms to the loss function that discourage overly complex models by constraining weight magnitudes, forcing models to learn simpler patterns that generalize better. Dropout randomly deactivates neurons during training, preventing co-adaptation and encouraging robust feature learning. These techniques can be combined: early stopping provides a training stopping criterion while regularization constrains model complexity throughout training. Together they ensure models learn generalizable patterns rather than memorizing training data. This makes A the correct answer for addressing overfitting with diverging training and validation performance.
B is incorrect because increasing the learning rate makes the model take larger optimization steps, which might speed convergence but does not address overfitting. A higher learning rate could actually worsen the situation by causing training instability or preventing the model from finding good solutions, and it does not reduce the model’s tendency to memorize training data.
C is incorrect because adding more training data without validation would provide more examples for learning but eliminating validation data removes the ability to detect overfitting. Without validation monitoring, there would be no way to identify when the model stops generalizing well, making the overfitting problem invisible rather than solving it.
D is incorrect because while removing features (feature selection) can sometimes reduce overfitting by eliminating irrelevant or noisy inputs, blindly removing features without analysis risks discarding informative variables that improve predictions. Feature selection should be data-driven rather than a generic response to overfitting, and regularization provides more nuanced feature importance management.
Question 187
A company needs to deploy a machine learning model that processes sensitive healthcare data. The model must meet HIPAA compliance requirements. Which SageMaker configuration ensures compliance?
A) Enable encryption at rest and in transit, deploy in VPC, and sign BAA with AWS
B) Use public endpoints with API Gateway
C) Deploy models in multiple regions for redundancy
D) Enable CloudWatch logging for all requests
Answer: A
Explanation:
Enabling encryption at rest and in transit, deploying in VPC, and signing a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with AWS ensures HIPAA compliance for healthcare machine learning workloads. HIPAA requires technical safeguards protecting Protected Health Information (PHI) including encryption, access controls, and audit capabilities. SageMaker supports encryption at rest using AWS KMS for training data, model artifacts, and endpoint storage, ensuring PHI remains encrypted when persisted. Encryption in transit using TLS protects data moving between services during training and inference. Deploying SageMaker resources within VPC provides network isolation, preventing unauthorized external access to training jobs and inference endpoints processing PHI. VPC configurations enable private connectivity to other AWS services without internet exposure. Organizations must sign AWS’s BAA acknowledging HIPAA responsibilities before processing PHI on AWS services including SageMaker. The BAA establishes AWS as a business associate handling PHI on behalf of covered entities. Additional compliance measures include IAM policies restricting access to authorized personnel, CloudTrail logging for audit trails, and SageMaker’s support for disabling internet access on training jobs and notebook instances. This comprehensive security configuration enables HIPAA-compliant machine learning. This makes A the correct answer for meeting HIPAA compliance requirements.
B is incorrect because using public endpoints with API Gateway exposes healthcare data to the public internet, violating HIPAA requirements for PHI protection. While API Gateway can add authentication, public exposure increases risk and fails to provide the network isolation HIPAA technical safeguards require for protecting sensitive healthcare information.
C is incorrect because while deploying across multiple regions improves availability and disaster recovery, multi-region deployment alone does not address HIPAA’s core requirements for encryption, access controls, and audit logging. Geographic redundancy provides resilience but does not ensure PHI protection or compliance with security and privacy requirements.
D is incorrect because while CloudWatch logging supports audit requirements by recording API calls and system events, logging alone is insufficient for HIPAA compliance. Logging must be combined with encryption, network isolation, access controls, and BAA execution to meet comprehensive HIPAA technical and administrative safeguard requirements.
Question 188
A machine learning engineer notices that their NLP model produces inconsistent predictions when the same text is provided multiple times. The model uses temperature-based sampling for text generation. How can prediction consistency be improved?
A) Set temperature to 0 or use greedy decoding
B) Increase the temperature parameter
C) Use more training epochs
D) Add more layers to the model
Answer: A
Explanation:
Setting temperature to 0 or using greedy decoding produces deterministic, consistent predictions by eliminating randomness from the text generation process. Temperature controls randomness in probability distributions over next-token predictions: high temperature increases diversity by flattening probability distributions, making less likely tokens more probable, while low temperature sharpens distributions toward the most likely tokens. Setting temperature to 0 or using greedy decoding (which always selects the highest probability token) produces deterministic output where identical inputs always generate identical predictions. This consistency is valuable for applications requiring reproducible results like content classification, named entity recognition, or when users expect consistent answers to repeated questions. While deterministic generation reduces output diversity and creativity, it ensures reliability and predictability crucial for many production applications. For applications requiring some variability with controlled consistency, setting random seeds provides reproducible stochastic behavior. This makes A the correct answer for achieving consistent, reproducible NLP model predictions.
B is incorrect because increasing temperature increases randomness and output diversity, making predictions even more inconsistent across repeated inputs. Higher temperature flattens probability distributions, increasing the likelihood of selecting lower-probability tokens, which produces more varied and unpredictable outputs—exactly the opposite of the desired consistency.
C is incorrect because using more training epochs affects how well the model learns patterns from training data but does not control inference-time randomness. Additional training might improve overall model quality but will not make predictions consistent when temperature-based sampling introduces randomness during generation.
D is incorrect because adding more layers increases model capacity and complexity, potentially improving performance on complex tasks, but does not address the randomness issue causing inconsistent predictions. Model architecture changes do not eliminate the stochastic sampling behavior that produces variable outputs for identical inputs.
Question 189
A company is building a computer vision model to detect defects in manufacturing. They have 10,000 images but only 500 show defects. What approach best addresses this imbalanced dataset for training?
A) Apply data augmentation on defect images and use class weights
B) Remove all non-defect images from training
C) Use only accuracy as the evaluation metric
D) Reduce image resolution to speed up training
Answer: A
Explanation:
Applying data augmentation on defect images and using class weights effectively addresses the severe class imbalance where defects represent only 5% of the dataset. Data augmentation artificially expands the minority class (defects) by creating variations of existing defect images through transformations like rotation, flipping, scaling, brightness adjustment, cropping, and adding noise. These transformations generate additional training examples while preserving defect characteristics, helping the model learn robust defect patterns from limited examples. Class weights assign higher misclassification penalties to the minority class during training, forcing the model to prioritize correctly identifying defects rather than achieving high accuracy by simply predicting the majority class. For example, assigning a weight of 20 to defects and 1 to non-defects makes defect misclassification 20 times more costly, encouraging the model to learn defect features. Additional techniques include using F1-score, precision, recall, or area under the precision-recall curve as evaluation metrics rather than accuracy, which is misleading for imbalanced data. Combining augmentation and class weighting provides both more minority class training data and training emphasis on correct minority class prediction. This makes A the correct answer for handling severely imbalanced manufacturing defect detection.
B is incorrect because removing all non-defect images eliminates the majority class entirely, preventing the model from learning to distinguish defects from normal conditions. The model needs examples of both classes to learn discriminative features. Removing non-defect images would result in a model that potentially classifies everything as defective since it never learned what normal products look like.
C is incorrect because using only accuracy as the evaluation metric is particularly problematic for imbalanced datasets. A model could achieve 95% accuracy by simply predicting “no defect” for every image without learning anything about actual defect patterns. Appropriate metrics for imbalanced classification include precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the precision-recall curve.
D is incorrect because reducing image resolution might speed training but could eliminate fine-grained visual features critical for detecting subtle manufacturing defects. Resolution reduction does not address class imbalance and may actually harm model performance by discarding important defect characteristics visible only at higher resolutions.
Question 190
A machine learning team needs to perform A/B testing for two model versions in production, routing 90% of traffic to the current model and 10% to a new model. Which SageMaker feature enables this traffic splitting?
A) SageMaker endpoint production variants
B) SageMaker Batch Transform
C) SageMaker Processing Jobs
D) SageMaker Ground Truth
Answer: A
Explanation:
SageMaker endpoint production variants enable A/B testing and traffic splitting by allowing multiple model versions to be deployed behind a single endpoint with configurable traffic distribution. Production variants let you specify different models, instance types, or instance counts within a single endpoint, then define the percentage of inference requests routed to each variant. For the described scenario, you would create two variants: one hosting the current model receiving 90% of traffic and another hosting the new model receiving 10%. SageMaker automatically distributes incoming requests according to specified weights, collecting separate CloudWatch metrics for each variant including invocation counts, latency, and errors. This enables real-world performance comparison under actual production traffic conditions without building custom routing infrastructure. Teams can gradually shift traffic as confidence in the new model increases (canary deployment), perform shadow mode testing where both models receive requests but only one returns predictions, or run controlled A/B experiments measuring business impact. Traffic weights can be updated anytime without endpoint downtime, enabling dynamic experimentation. This makes A the correct answer for implementing production A/B testing with traffic splitting.
B is incorrect because SageMaker Batch Transform processes offline batch predictions on datasets stored in S3 rather than serving real-time inference requests. Batch Transform cannot handle production traffic routing or A/B testing since it operates in batch mode processing complete datasets asynchronously rather than serving live user requests.
C is incorrect because SageMaker Processing Jobs execute data preprocessing, feature engineering, or model evaluation tasks but do not serve model predictions or handle production inference traffic. Processing Jobs are designed for data preparation workflows rather than production model deployment and traffic management.
D is incorrect because SageMaker Ground Truth is a data labeling service for creating high-quality training datasets through human annotation combined with automated labeling. Ground Truth operates in the data preparation phase and has no relationship to production model deployment, traffic routing, or A/B testing.
Question 191
A data scientist needs to detect anomalies in time-series sensor data from industrial equipment. The data has seasonal patterns and trends. Which AWS service provides built-in anomaly detection for time-series data?
A) Amazon Lookout for Equipment
B) Amazon Textract
C) Amazon Comprehend
D) Amazon Translate
Answer: A
Explanation:
Amazon Lookout for Equipment is specifically designed for detecting anomalies in time-series sensor data from industrial equipment using machine learning. This fully managed service analyzes data from sensors monitoring equipment operation including temperature, pressure, vibration, and rotation speed, automatically learning normal operating patterns while accounting for seasonal variations and trends. Lookout for Equipment uses advanced machine learning algorithms that detect subtle anomalies indicating potential equipment failures before they occur, enabling predictive maintenance. The service handles complex aspects of time-series analysis including trend detection, seasonality adjustment, and multivariate correlation analysis across multiple sensors simultaneously. Users simply provide historical sensor data and labels for known failures (if available), and the service automatically trains custom anomaly detection models specific to their equipment. Once deployed, models continuously analyze incoming sensor data in real-time or batch mode, generating anomaly scores and alerts when abnormal patterns are detected. By identifying early warning signs of equipment degradation or failure, Lookout for Equipment enables proactive maintenance scheduling, reducing unplanned downtime and maintenance costs. This makes A the correct answer for time-series anomaly detection in industrial equipment monitoring.
B is incorrect because Amazon Textract is a document analysis service that extracts text, tables, and forms from scanned documents using optical character recognition. Textract processes documents and images rather than time-series sensor data and does not provide anomaly detection capabilities for equipment monitoring.
C is incorrect because Amazon Comprehend is a natural language processing service that analyzes text for sentiment, entities, key phrases, language, and topics. Comprehend works with textual data from documents, social media, or customer feedback rather than numerical time-series sensor data from industrial equipment.
D is incorrect because Amazon Translate provides neural machine translation for converting text between languages. Translate handles language translation tasks and does not analyze time-series data or detect anomalies in sensor readings from equipment.
Question 192
A machine learning model deployed on SageMaker needs to process inference requests that take 5-10 minutes to complete due to complex computations. Which inference option is most appropriate for these long-running requests?
A) SageMaker Asynchronous Inference
B) SageMaker real-time endpoints
C) SageMaker Serverless Inference
D) AWS Lambda functions
Answer: A
Explanation:
SageMaker Asynchronous Inference is specifically designed for handling long-running inference requests that take minutes to complete, making it ideal for computations requiring 5-10 minutes per request. Asynchronous inference queues incoming requests in Amazon SQS, processes them as endpoint capacity allows, and stores results in S3, then optionally sends notifications via SNS when predictions complete. This architecture decouples request submission from result retrieval, allowing clients to submit requests and check results later rather than maintaining open connections during long processing times. Asynchronous inference supports large payload sizes up to 1GB, automatic scaling based on queue depth, and configurable maximum concurrency to control cost. The service handles queueing, retry logic for failed requests, and request prioritization automatically. For use cases like complex simulations, detailed image analysis, video processing, or large document analysis requiring extended processing time, asynchronous inference provides the appropriate infrastructure without timeout constraints. Clients receive request IDs upon submission and can poll S3 for results or subscribe to SNS notifications. This makes A the correct answer for long-running inference requests taking several minutes.
B is incorrect because SageMaker real-time endpoints are designed for low-latency synchronous predictions completing in milliseconds to seconds. Real-time endpoints maintain open HTTP connections during inference, but most load balancers and clients have timeout limits (typically 60-120 seconds) that would terminate connections before 5-10 minute computations complete, causing request failures.
C is incorrect because SageMaker Serverless Inference automatically provisions capacity based on request traffic and charges only for compute time used, but it still operates in request-response mode with timeout constraints. Serverless inference is designed for intermittent traffic with per-request processing times typically measured in seconds rather than minutes.
D is incorrect because AWS Lambda has a maximum execution timeout of 15 minutes, which while technically sufficient for 5-10 minute requests, makes it less suitable than purpose-built asynchronous inference. Lambda also has payload size limits, memory constraints, and cold start delays that make it suboptimal for long-running ML inference compared to SageMaker’s dedicated inference infrastructure.
Question 193
A company wants to use machine learning to automatically generate product descriptions from product images. Which AWS AI service provides this capability?
A) Amazon Rekognition with custom labels or Amazon Bedrock
B) Amazon Polly
C) Amazon Transcribe
D) Amazon Comprehend Medical
Answer: A
Explanation:
Amazon Rekognition with custom labels or Amazon Bedrock provides capabilities for generating product descriptions from images. Rekognition Custom Labels enables training custom computer vision models that detect specific product features, attributes, and characteristics in images, which can then be used to generate structured descriptions. For more advanced natural language generation from images, Amazon Bedrock provides access to foundation models including multimodal models that can analyze images and generate human-like descriptive text. Bedrock’s Claude or other multimodal models can directly process product images and create detailed, contextual descriptions capturing visual elements, product features, style characteristics, and usage contexts. These models understand both visual content and language, enabling them to generate coherent, accurate product descriptions that highlight relevant attributes. Alternatively, a custom solution could combine Rekognition for extracting visual features with language models for generating descriptions based on detected features. This approach leverages AWS’s pre-trained AI services for image understanding and natural language generation without requiring extensive custom model development. This makes A the correct answer for generating product descriptions from images.
B is incorrect because Amazon Polly is a text-to-speech service that converts written text into lifelike spoken audio. While Polly could read product descriptions aloud, it does not analyze images or generate descriptions from visual content. Polly requires text input and produces audio output.
C is incorrect because Amazon Transcribe is a speech-to-text service that converts audio recordings into written text transcripts. Transcribe processes audio rather than images and does not provide image analysis or description generation capabilities needed for creating product descriptions from product photos.
D is incorrect because Amazon Comprehend Medical is a natural language processing service specialized for extracting medical information from clinical text including medications, conditions, dosages, and medical terminology. Comprehend Medical analyzes healthcare text documents rather than images and does not generate product descriptions.
Question 194
A machine learning team needs to ensure their model training process is reproducible across different runs. Which practices ensure training reproducibility?
A) Set random seeds, version control code and data, and track hyperparameters
B) Use different datasets for each training run
C) Randomize hyperparameters without tracking
D) Train on different hardware each time
Answer: A
Explanation:
Setting random seeds, version controlling code and data, and tracking hyperparameters ensures reproducible machine learning training where identical configurations produce identical results. Random seeds control initialization of random number generators used throughout training including weight initialization, data shuffling, dropout mask generation, and data augmentation, ensuring these stochastic processes generate the same sequences across runs. Version controlling training code, data preprocessing scripts, and datasets (or their versions/checksums) ensures the exact same code and data are used for reproduction attempts. Tracking all hyperparameters including learning rate, batch size, optimizer settings, regularization parameters, and model architecture ensures complete configuration documentation. SageMaker Experiments automatically captures this information, while manual tracking can use configuration files stored in version control. Additional reproducibility practices include documenting software dependencies with specific library versions, using containerization (Docker) to freeze execution environments, and recording hardware specifications since some operations may produce slightly different results on different hardware. Comprehensive tracking enables exact reproduction of training conditions, critical for debugging, regulatory compliance, and scientific validity. This makes A the correct answer for ensuring reproducible training processes.
B is incorrect because using different datasets for each training run guarantees different results and prevents reproducibility entirely. Reproducible research requires using identical data—either the same fixed dataset or versioned datasets where specific versions are documented and reused for reproduction attempts.
C is incorrect because randomizing hyperparameters without tracking prevents reproducing results since there would be no record of what configuration produced specific outcomes. Reproducibility requires documenting all configuration choices so they can be exactly replicated in future training runs.
D is incorrect because training on different hardware each time introduces variability that may prevent exact reproduction due to hardware-specific numerical precision differences, particularly with GPU operations. While models should be robust to hardware variations, reproducibility is best achieved using consistent hardware or at minimum documenting hardware specifications.
Question 195
A company needs to build a custom machine learning model but their data science team has limited expertise. Which AWS service provides automated machine learning (AutoML) capabilities?
A) Amazon SageMaker Autopilot
B) Amazon SageMaker Neo
C) Amazon SageMaker Edge Manager
D) Amazon SageMaker Debugger
Answer: A
Explanation:
Amazon SageMaker Autopilot provides fully automated machine learning (AutoML) capabilities that enable users with limited data science expertise to build high-quality models automatically. Autopilot analyzes provided datasets, automatically performs data preprocessing and feature engineering, selects appropriate algorithms from its library (including XGBoost, linear models, and deep learning), trains multiple model candidates with different algorithms and hyperparameter configurations, and identifies the best-performing model based on specified objectives like accuracy, F1-score, or AUC. The service handles the entire model development pipeline automatically including data splitting, cross-validation, model training, hyperparameter optimization, and model selection. Autopilot provides full visibility into the process, generating notebooks showing all preprocessing steps, feature transformations, and model training code, enabling users to understand what was done and customize approaches if desired. Users simply provide tabular data and specify the target column; Autopilot handles everything else. For organizations with limited ML expertise or those seeking to accelerate initial model development, Autopilot democratizes machine learning by automating complex decisions while maintaining transparency. This makes A the correct answer for providing AutoML capabilities for teams with limited expertise.
B is incorrect because Amazon SageMaker Neo optimizes trained machine learning models for efficient inference on various hardware platforms by compiling models into optimized runtime representations. Neo addresses model optimization and deployment efficiency but does not provide automated model building, training, or AutoML capabilities for teams lacking data science expertise.
C is incorrect because Amazon SageMaker Edge Manager optimizes, secures, and manages machine learning models deployed on edge devices like IoT sensors and mobile devices. Edge Manager handles edge deployment lifecycle management but does not provide automated model building or training capabilities for creating models from data.
D is incorrect because Amazon SageMaker Debugger monitors training jobs in real-time to identify issues like vanishing gradients, overfitting, or training convergence problems. Debugger helps optimize training for users who already know how to build models but does not provide AutoML capabilities for automatically building models from raw data.
Question 196
A machine learning model needs to make predictions on streaming video data from security cameras in real-time. Which AWS service combination is most appropriate for this use case?
A) Amazon Kinesis Video Streams with SageMaker or Rekognition
B) Amazon S3 with Batch Transform
C) AWS Glue with EMR
D) Amazon RDS with Lambda
Answer: A
Explanation:
Amazon Kinesis Video Streams combined with SageMaker or Rekognition provides the optimal architecture for processing streaming video from security cameras with real-time machine learning predictions. Kinesis Video Streams ingests, stores, and makes available live and recorded video streams from millions of connected devices including security cameras, smartphones, and drones. The service handles video ingestion complexities including variable bitrates, network interruptions, and time-synchronized playback. For analysis, video streams can be consumed by Amazon Rekognition Video for pre-built computer vision capabilities like face detection, person tracking, object recognition, activity detection, and inappropriate content moderation, or by custom SageMaker models for specialized detection tasks. Applications can process video frames in real-time as they arrive, generating immediate alerts or actions based on detected events. Kinesis Video Streams automatically scales to handle thousands of simultaneous video sources, encrypts video data, and provides APIs for time-based video retrieval. This architecture enables security monitoring applications to detect threats, track individuals, identify anomalies, and trigger automated responses in real-time. This makes A the correct answer for real-time streaming video analysis.
B is incorrect because Amazon S3 with Batch Transform is designed for offline batch processing of stored data rather than real-time streaming video analysis. This combination would require recording video to S3 first, then processing it in batches with significant delays, making it unsuitable for real-time security monitoring requiring immediate threat detection and response.
C is incorrect because AWS Glue with EMR provides big data ETL and batch processing capabilities rather than real-time streaming video analysis. While EMR can process large datasets using Spark, this combination is optimized for batch data processing workflows rather than continuous video stream ingestion and real-time computer vision inference.
D is incorrect because Amazon RDS is a relational database service for structured transactional data, not video stream ingestion and processing. Lambda could theoretically process video frames but lacks the specialized video streaming infrastructure, time-synchronized playback, and scalability that Kinesis Video Streams provides for handling multiple camera feeds.
Question 197
A data scientist notices their model’s validation accuracy fluctuates significantly between epochs during training. What technique helps stabilize training and improve convergence?
A) Reduce learning rate or implement learning rate scheduling
B) Increase batch size to maximum
C) Remove validation set entirely
D) Add more output neurons
Answer: A
Explanation:
Reducing learning rate or implementing learning rate scheduling helps stabilize training and improve convergence when validation accuracy fluctuates significantly between epochs. Large learning rates cause the optimization algorithm to take oversized steps in parameter space, potentially overshooting optimal values and causing erratic performance as the model oscillates around minima without settling. Reducing the learning rate enables smaller, more controlled parameter updates that allow gradual convergence to better solutions. Learning rate scheduling strategies adaptively adjust learning rates during training: step decay reduces learning rate at predetermined epochs, exponential decay gradually decreases it over time, and techniques like ReduceLROnPlateau reduce learning rate when validation metrics plateau. Warm-up strategies start with small learning rates then gradually increase them, while cyclical learning rates vary between boundaries. These approaches help models converge smoothly by using larger learning rates early for rapid initial learning, then smaller rates later for fine-tuning. Additional stabilization techniques include gradient clipping to prevent exploding gradients and batch normalization to reduce internal covariate shift. This makes A the correct answer for stabilizing fluctuating training performance.
B is incorrect because increasing batch size to maximum may actually worsen training stability in some cases. While larger batches provide more stable gradient estimates, excessively large batches can lead to poor generalization, require proportionally larger learning rates which may cause instability, and may not fit in available memory. Batch size optimization requires balancing stability with generalization and computational constraints.
C is incorrect because removing the validation set eliminates the ability to monitor generalization performance and detect overfitting. Without validation monitoring, there would be no indication of fluctuating performance or convergence issues, making problems invisible rather than solving them. Validation sets are essential for assessing model quality and guiding training decisions.
D is incorrect because adding more output neurons changes the model architecture in ways unrelated to training stability. The number of output neurons should match the prediction task requirements (number of classes for classification or prediction dimensions for regression) and does not address the learning dynamics causing fluctuating validation accuracy.
Question 198
A company wants to deploy a machine learning model that needs to scale to zero when not in use to minimize costs but still handle occasional inference requests. Which SageMaker inference option is most cost-effective?
A) SageMaker Serverless Inference
B) SageMaker real-time endpoints with minimum instance count of 1
C) SageMaker Batch Transform
D) EC2 instances with manual scaling
Answer: A
Explanation:
SageMaker Serverless Inference provides the most cost-effective solution for models with intermittent traffic that need to scale to zero during idle periods. Serverless Inference automatically provisions compute capacity on-demand when inference requests arrive and scales down to zero when no requests are being processed, eliminating costs for idle infrastructure. Users pay only for compute time actually used during inference rather than for continuously running instances. The service automatically handles capacity provisioning, scaling, and infrastructure management without requiring configuration of instance types, counts, or auto-scaling policies. Serverless Inference is ideal for applications with unpredictable or sporadic traffic patterns, development and testing environments, infrequently accessed models, or applications with long idle periods between request bursts. The service supports memory configurations from 1GB to 6GB, automatic scaling based on traffic, and cold start latency typically under 10 seconds for first requests after idle periods. For cost optimization with occasional inference needs, the pay-per-use model with automatic scale-to-zero provides significant savings compared to maintaining always-on infrastructure. This makes A the correct answer for cost-effective inference with intermittent usage.
B is incorrect because SageMaker real-time endpoints with minimum instance count of 1 maintains at least one instance running continuously, incurring costs 24/7 even when receiving no inference requests. While real-time endpoints provide consistently low latency, they do not scale to zero and continue charging for idle capacity, making them cost-ineffective for intermittent workloads.
C is incorrect because SageMaker Batch Transform is designed for offline processing of large datasets rather than handling occasional real-time inference requests. Batch Transform requires pre-collecting data, submitting batch jobs, and waiting for results, making it unsuitable for serving individual inference requests on-demand when they arrive unpredictably.
D is incorrect because EC2 instances with manual scaling requires managing infrastructure directly including instance selection, startup/shutdown automation, and manual scaling decisions. This approach provides maximum control but requires significant operational effort and typically cannot scale to zero as quickly or automatically as Serverless Inference, resulting in higher costs and management overhead.
Question 199
A machine learning team needs to explain to business stakeholders why their model denied a loan application. Which model type and technique combination provides the best interpretability?
A) Linear regression or tree-based models with SHAP values
B) Deep neural networks without explanation tools
C) Ensemble of 100 models without feature importance
D) Black-box model with no interpretation layer
Answer: A
Explanation:
Linear regression or tree-based models combined with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values provide excellent interpretability for explaining individual predictions like loan denials to business stakeholders. Linear models are inherently interpretable with coefficients directly showing each feature’s contribution to predictions, making it easy to explain that factors like income, credit score, or debt-to-income ratio influenced the decision. Tree-based models like decision trees, random forests, or gradient boosted trees provide rule-based decision paths showing exactly which feature values led to specific predictions. SHAP values enhance interpretability for any model by computing each feature’s contribution to individual predictions, showing stakeholders precisely how much each factor (positively or negatively) influenced the loan decision. SHAP provides both global feature importance across all predictions and local explanations for individual cases, enabling statements like “this application was denied primarily due to high debt-to-income ratio (contributing -0.3) and recent credit inquiries (contributing -0.15).” This transparency is crucial for regulatory compliance, building trust with applicants, and identifying potential discrimination. This makes A the correct answer for interpretable loan decision explanations.
B is incorrect because deep neural networks without explanation tools are notoriously difficult to interpret, often described as “black boxes.” While deep learning may achieve high accuracy, explaining why a specific loan was denied becomes nearly impossible without interpretation techniques, making it unsuitable for applications requiring transparent decision justification to stakeholders and applicants.
C is incorrect because ensembles of 100 models without feature importance analysis provide no interpretability. While ensembles may improve prediction accuracy through aggregation, explaining decisions becomes extremely complex when predictions result from averaging hundreds of models, and without feature importance, stakeholders have no insight into what factors influenced decisions.
D is incorrect because black-box models without interpretation layers provide no explanation capabilities whatsoever. Using such models for loan decisions would violate fair lending regulations requiring lenders to provide adverse action notices explaining why applications were denied, and would be unacceptable to regulators and stakeholders requiring transparency.
Question 200
A company is building a machine learning pipeline that includes data preprocessing, training, evaluation, and deployment. They want to automate the entire workflow with dependencies between steps. Which AWS service orchestrates this end-to-end ML pipeline?
A) Amazon SageMaker Pipelines
B) Amazon SageMaker Studio Notebooks
C) AWS Step Functions
D) Amazon EventBridge
Answer: A
Explanation:
Amazon SageMaker Pipelines is purpose-built for orchestrating end-to-end machine learning workflows with automated execution and dependency management between pipeline steps. Pipelines enables defining complete ML workflows as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) where each node represents a step like data preprocessing with SageMaker Processing, model training with SageMaker Training, hyperparameter tuning, model evaluation, quality checks, model registration, and deployment. Steps execute automatically in order based on defined dependencies, with outputs from one step flowing as inputs to subsequent steps. Pipelines provides conditional execution enabling different paths based on model performance metrics, parallel execution for processing multiple configurations simultaneously, and built-in caching to avoid reprocessing unchanged data. The service integrates natively with SageMaker Model Registry for version control, supports parameterization enabling the same pipeline definition to run in different environments, and provides full lineage tracking showing how models were created. Teams can schedule pipelines to run regularly for model retraining, trigger execution based on events like new data arrival, or manually initiate runs. This comprehensive orchestration capability makes A the correct answer for automating ML pipelines with dependencies.
B is incorrect because Amazon SageMaker Studio Notebooks provide interactive Jupyter environments for exploratory analysis, prototyping, and ad-hoc experimentation. While notebooks can execute pipeline steps manually or programmatically, they don’t provide automated orchestration, dependency management, scheduling, or production workflow capabilities that Pipelines delivers.
C is incorrect because while AWS Step Functions provides general-purpose workflow orchestration and could theoretically orchestrate ML workflows, it lacks the machine learning-specific features that SageMaker Pipelines provides including native SageMaker service integration, model registry integration, ML-specific step types, and built-in features like caching and parameterization optimized for ML workflows.
D is incorrect because Amazon EventBridge is an event bus service that routes events between AWS services and applications, enabling event-driven architectures. While EventBridge could trigger pipeline executions based on events, it doesn’t provide workflow orchestration, step dependency management, or the comprehensive ML pipeline capabilities that SageMaker Pipelines delivers for complete workflow automation.
