MLA-C01 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Machine Learning Engineer - Associate

Explaining how a model makes predictions is the domain of model interpretability and explainability. Amazon SageMaker Clarify is designed specifically to provide explanations for ML predictions using techniques such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations).

SageMaker Clarify can analyze deployed endpoints to show feature importance, explain individual predictions, and quantify how each input feature contributes to the model’s output. This makes it ideal for communicating model behavior to non-technical stakeholders and meeting transparency requirements.

Model Monitor focuses on data and performance drift, not explanations. A/B testing and shadow endpoints compare performance but do not explain predictions.

Therefore, SageMaker Clarify is the correct solution for explaining model predictions.

SageMaker Debugger can identify when a training job is not converging or is stuck in a non-productive state. By stopping these jobs early, unnecessary energy and computational resources are conserved, improving sustainability.

AWS Trainium instances are purpose-built for ML training and are optimized for energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness. They use less energy per training task compared to general-purpose instances, making them a sustainable choice.

Different data types require different encoding strategies. The Feedback column contains long, unstructured text responses. According to AWS ML documentation, text data must first be converted into tokens before it can be vectorized using techniques such as embeddings or bag-of-words. Tokenization is the correct preprocessing step for textual features.

The Satisfaction Level column is categorical but has a natural ordering (Low < Medium < High). AWS best practices recommend ordinal encoding for such ordered categorical variables because it preserves the inherent ranking information.

Option A is incorrect because one-hot encoding is not suitable for free-form text and would create an unmanageable number of features. Option B has the same issue for the Feedback column. Option C incorrectly applies label encoding to text and binary encoding to a three-class ordinal variable.

Therefore, tokenization for text data and ordinal encoding for satisfaction levels is the correct solution.

AWS recommends shadow testing to evaluate a new model against a production model with minimal operational overhead. Using production variants on a single SageMaker endpoint allows traffic to be routed to multiple models without managing additional endpoints.

With a shadow variant, the new model receives a copy of live traffic but does not affect production responses. Performance metrics such as latency, accuracy, and error rates can be compared directly against the current model using Amazon CloudWatch metrics. This approach is natively supported by Amazon SageMaker Endpoints.

Options A, B, and D introduce unnecessary complexity by requiring additional endpoints, traffic routing infrastructure, or custom code.

Therefore, deploying the new model as a shadow variant on the same endpoint is the most efficient solution.

In a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture, retrieval quality directly impacts response accuracy. AWS documentation for Bedrock and OpenSearch highlights the use of reranker models to improve relevance after initial vector search retrieval.

Vector search retrieves documents based on embedding similarity, but the top results are not always the most contextually relevant. A reranker model evaluates the retrieved documents against the user query and reorders them based on semantic relevance before sending them to the foundation model.

Option A improves readability but does not improve retrieval relevance. Option C filters data before retrieval, which can reduce recall. Option D improves performance, not relevance.

AWS explicitly recommends reranking as a best practice for improving answer quality in RAG systems.

Therefore, Option B is the correct solution.

This problem describes severe class imbalance in an image classification task, where the minority class has poor predictive performance. In such cases, accuracy is a misleading metric, because a model can achieve high accuracy by predicting only the majority class. AWS ML best practices recommend using F1 score, which balances precision and recall and is more appropriate for imbalanced classification problems.

To improve performance on the minority image class, image augmentation is the preferred approach. Augmentation techniques—such as rotation, cropping, flipping, and brightness adjustment—create realistic new training examples while preserving semantic meaning. AWS documentation recommends augmentation for computer vision workloads to improve generalization without collecting new data.

SMOTE (Options C and D) is designed for tabular data, not image data, and generating synthetic pixel-level images using SMOTE is not appropriate or supported in typical computer vision pipelines.

Option A is incorrect because optimizing for accuracy does not address minority-class performance. Option D is incorrect because SMOTE is unsuitable for images.

Therefore, optimizing for F1 score and using image augmentation on the minority class is the correct solution.

To generate images, the application must invoke a foundation model hosted on Amazon Bedrock. Invoking the Amazon Titan Image Generator requires the bedrock:InvokeModel permission. Read-only permissions such as bedrock:Get* do not allow inference execution and are insufficient.

The application also interacts with Amazon Simple Queue Service. To process messages, the application must be able to receive messages from the queue and delete them after successful processing. These actions require sqs:ReceiveMessage and sqs:DeleteMessage.

sqs:GetQueueAttributes alone does not allow message consumption. SageMaker permissions are unrelated because Bedrock is a separate service.

Therefore, permissions to invoke the model and receive/delete SQS messages are required.

When predicting continuous variables, such as apartment prices, it's essential to evaluate the model's performance using appropriate regression metrics. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) is a widely used metric for this purpose.

Understanding Mean Absolute Error (MAE):

MAE measures the average magnitude of errors in a set of predictions, without considering their direction. It calculates the average absolute difference between predicted values and actual values, providing a straightforward interpretation of prediction accuracy.

Advantages of MAE:

Interpretability: MAE is expressed in the same units as the target variable, making it easy to understand.

Robustness to Outliers: Unlike metrics that square the errors (e.g., Mean Squared Error), MAE does not disproportionately penalize larger errors, making it more robust to outliers.

Comparison with Other Metrics:

Accuracy, AUC, F1 Score: These metrics are designed for classification tasks, where the goal is to predict discrete labels. They are not suitable for regression problems involving continuous target variables.

Mean Squared Error (MSE): While MSE also measures prediction errors, it squares the differences, giving more weight to larger errors. This can be useful in certain contexts but may be sensitive to outliers.

Conclusion:

For evaluating the performance of a model predicting apartment prices—a continuous variable—MAE is an appropriate and effective metric. It provides a clear indication of the average prediction error in the same units as the target variable, facilitating straightforward interpretation and comparison.