MLS-C01 Exam Dumps - AWS Certified Machine Learning - Specialty

To fix the incorrectly skewed data, the Data Scientist can apply two feature transformations: numerical value binning and logarithmic transformation. Numerical value binning is a technique that groups continuous values into discrete bins or categories. This can help reduce the skewness of the data by creating more balanced frequency distributions. Logarithmic transformation is a technique that applies the natural logarithm function to each value in the data. This can help reduce the right skewness of the data by compressing the large values and expanding the small values. Both of these transformations can make the data more suitable for machine learning algorithms that assume normality of the data. References:

Data Transformation - Amazon SageMaker

Transforming Skewed Data for Machine Learning

To read data from an Amazon S3 bucket that is protected with server-side encryption using AWS KMS, the Amazon SageMaker notebook instance needs to have an IAM role that has permission to access the S3 bucket and the KMS key. The IAM role is an identity that defines the permissions for the notebook instance to interact with other AWS services. The IAM role can be assigned to the notebook instance when it is created or updated later.

The KMS key policy is a document that specifies who can use and manage the KMS key. The KMS key policy can grant permission to the IAM role of the notebook instance to decrypt the data in the S3 bucket. The KMS key policy can also grant permission to other principals, such as AWS accounts, IAM users, or IAM roles, to use the KMS key for encryption and decryption operations.

Therefore, the Machine Learning Specialist should assign an IAM role to the Amazon SageMaker notebook with S3 read access to the dataset. Grant permission in the KMS key policy to that role. This way, the notebook instance can use the IAM role credentials to access the S3 bucket and the KMS key, and read the encrypted data from the S3 bucket.

References:

Create an IAM Role to Grant Permissions to Your Notebook Instance

Using Key Policies in AWS KMS

The correct combination of actions to enable the data scientist’s IAM user to invoke the SageMaker endpoint is B, C, and E, because they ensure that the IAM user has the necessary permissions, access, and syntax to query the ML model from Athena. These actions have the following benefits:

B: Including a policy statement for the IAM user that allows the sagemaker:InvokeEndpoint action grants the IAM user the permission to call the SageMaker Runtime InvokeEndpoint API, which is used to get inferences from the model hosted at the endpoint1.

C: Including an inline policy for the IAM user that allows SageMaker to read S3 objects enables the IAM user to access the data stored in S3, which is the source of the Athena queries2.

E: Including the SQL statement “USING EXTERNAL FUNCTION ml_function_name” in the Athena SQL query allows the IAM user to invoke the ML model as an external function from Athena, which is a feature that enables querying ML models from SQL statements3.

The other options are not correct or necessary, because they have the following drawbacks:

A: Attaching the AmazonAthenaFullAccess AWS managed policy to the user identity is not sufficient, because it does not grant the IAM user the permission to invoke the SageMaker endpoint, which is required to query the ML model4.

D: Including a policy statement for the IAM user that allows the IAM user to perform the sagemaker:GetRecord action is not relevant, because this action is used to retrieve a single record from a feature group, which is not the case in this scenario5.

F: Performing a user remapping in SageMaker to map the IAM user to another IAM user that is on the hosted endpoint is not applicable, because this feature is only available for multi-model endpoints, which are not used in this scenario.

References:

1: InvokeEndpoint - Amazon SageMaker

2: Querying Data in Amazon S3 from Amazon Athena - Amazon Athena

3: Querying machine learning models from Amazon Athena using Amazon SageMaker | AWS Machine Learning Blog

4: AmazonAthenaFullAccess - AWS Identity and Access Management

5: GetRecord - Amazon SageMaker Feature Store Runtime

: [Invoke a Multi-Model Endpoint - Amazon SageMaker]

The XGBoost algorithm is a popular machine learning technique for classification problems. It is based on the idea of boosting, which is to combine many weak learners (decision trees) into a strong learner (ensemble model).

The XGBoost algorithm can handle imbalanced data by using the scale_pos_weight parameter, which controls the balance of positive and negative weights in the objective function. A typical value to consider is the ratio of negative cases to positive cases in the data. By increasing this parameter, the algorithm will pay more attention to the minority class (positive) and reduce the number of false negatives.

The XGBoost algorithm can also use different evaluation metrics to optimize the model performance. The default metric is error, which is the misclassification rate. However, this metric can be misleading for imbalanced data, as it does not account for the different costs of false positives and false negatives. A better metric to use is AUC, which is the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The ROC curve plots the true positive rate against the false positive rate for different threshold values. The AUC measures how well the model can distinguish between the two classes, regardless of the threshold. By changing the eval_metric parameter to AUC, the algorithm will try to maximize the AUC score and reduce the number of false negatives.

Therefore, the combination of steps that should be taken to reduce the number of false negatives are to increase the scale_pos_weight parameter and change the eval_metric parameter to AUC.

References:

XGBoost Parameters

XGBoost for Imbalanced Classification

The best approaches to decrease the training time of the model are C and D, because they can improve the computational efficiency and parallelization of the training process. These approaches have the following benefits:

C: Replacing CPU-based EC2 instances with GPU-based EC2 instances can speed up the training of the DeepAR algorithm, as it can leverage the parallel processing power of GPUs to perform matrix operations and gradient computations faster than CPUs12. The DeepAR algorithm supports GPU-based EC2 instances such as ml.p2 and ml.p33.

D: Using multiple training instances can also reduce the training time of the DeepAR algorithm, as it can distribute the workload across multiple nodes and perform data parallelism4. The DeepAR algorithm supports distributed training with multiple CPU-based or GPU-based EC2 instances3.

The other options are not effective or relevant, because they have the following drawbacks:

A: Replacing On-Demand Instances with Spot Instances can reduce the cost of the training, but not necessarily the time, as Spot Instances are subject to interruption and availability5. Moreover, the DeepAR algorithm does not support checkpointing, which means that the training cannot resume from the last saved state if the Spot Instance is terminated3.

B: Configuring model auto scaling dynamically to adjust the number of instances automatically is not applicable, as this feature is only available for inference endpoints, not for training jobs6.

E: Using a pre-trained version of the model and running incremental training is not possible, as the DeepAR algorithm does not support incremental training or transfer learning3. The DeepAR algorithm requires a full retraining of the model whenever new data is added or the hyperparameters are changed7.

References:

1: GPU vs CPU: What Matters Most for Machine Learning? | by Louis (What’s AI) Bouchard | Towards Data Science

2: How GPUs Accelerate Machine Learning Training | NVIDIA Developer Blog

3: DeepAR Forecasting Algorithm - Amazon SageMaker

4: Distributed Training - Amazon SageMaker

5: Managed Spot Training - Amazon SageMaker

6: Automatic Scaling - Amazon SageMaker

7: How the DeepAR Algorithm Works - Amazon SageMaker

The solution A will create the required transformed records with the least operational overhead because it uses AWS Lambda and Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose, which are fully managed services that can provide the desired functionality. The solution A involves the following steps:

Create an AWS Lambda function that can transform the incoming records. AWS Lambda is a service that can run code without provisioning or managing servers. AWS Lambda can execute the transformation logic on the purchasing records and add the new attributes to the records1.

Enable data transformation on the ingestion Kinesis Data Firehose delivery stream. Use the Lambda function as the invocation target. Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose is a service that can capture, transform, and load streaming data into AWS data stores. Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose can enable data transformation and invoke the Lambda function to process the incoming records before delivering them to Amazon S3. This can reduce the operational overhead of managing the transformation process and the data storage2.

The other options are not suitable because:

Option B: Deploying an Amazon EMR cluster that runs Apache Spark and includes the transformation logic, using Amazon EventBridge (Amazon CloudWatch Events) to schedule an AWS Lambda function to launch the cluster each day and transform the records that accumulate in Amazon S3, and delivering the transformed records to Amazon S3 will incur more operational overhead than using AWS Lambda and Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. The company will have to manage the Amazon EMR cluster, the Apache Spark application, the AWS Lambda function, and the Amazon EventBridge rule. Moreover, this solution will introduce a delay in the transformation process, as it will run only once a day3.

Option C: Deploying an Amazon S3 File Gateway in the stores, updating the in-store software to deliver data to the S3 File Gateway, and using a scheduled daily AWS Glue job to transform the data that the S3 File Gateway delivers to Amazon S3 will incur more operational overhead than using AWS Lambda and Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. The company will have to manage the S3 File Gateway, the in-store software, and the AWS Glue job. Moreover, this solution will introduce a delay in the transformation process, as it will run only once a day4.

Option D: Launching a fleet of Amazon EC2 instances that include the transformation logic, configuring the EC2 instances with a daily cron job to transform the records that accumulate in Amazon S3, and delivering the transformed records to Amazon S3 will incur more operational overhead than using AWS Lambda and Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. The company will have to manage the EC2 instances, the transformation code, and the cron job. Moreover, this solution will introduce a delay in the transformation process, as it will run only once a day5.

References:

1: AWS Lambda

2: Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose

3: Amazon EMR

4: Amazon S3 File Gateway

5: Amazon EC2

 XGBoost is a built-in Amazon SageMaker machine learning algorithm that should be used for modeling the credit card fraud detection problem. XGBoost is an algorithm that implements a scalable and distributed gradient boosting framework, which is a popular and effective technique for supervised learning problems. Gradient boosting is a method of combining multiple weak learners, such as decision trees, into a strong learner, by iteratively fitting new models to the residual errors of the previous models and adding them to the ensemble. XGBoost can handle various types of data, such as numerical, categorical, or text, and can perform both regression and classification tasks. XGBoost also supports various features and optimizations, such as regularization, missing value handling, parallelization, and cross-validation, that can improve the performance and efficiency of the algorithm.

XGBoost is suitable for the credit card fraud detection problem for the following reasons:

The problem is a binary classification problem, where the goal is to predict whether a transaction is fraudulent or not, based on the information from new transactions. XGBoost can perform binary classification by using a logistic regression objective function and outputting the probability of the positive class (fraudulent) for each transaction.

The problem involves a large and imbalanced dataset of historical data labeled as fraudulent. XGBoost can handle large-scale and imbalanced data by using distributed and parallel computing, as well as techniques such as weighted sampling, class weighting, or stratified sampling, to balance the classes and reduce the bias towards the majority class (non-fraudulent).

The problem requires a high accuracy and precision for detecting fraudulent transactions, as well as a low false positive rate for avoiding false alarms. XGBoost can achieve high accuracy and precision by using gradient boosting, which can learn complex and non-linear patterns from the data and reduce the variance and overfitting of the model. XGBoost can also achieve a low false positive rate by using regularization, which can reduce the complexity and noise of the model and prevent it from fitting spurious signals in the data.

The other options are not as suitable as XGBoost for the credit card fraud detection problem for the following reasons:

Seq2seq: Seq2seq is an algorithm that implements a sequence-to-sequence model, which is a type of neural network model that can map an input sequence to an output sequence. Seq2seq is mainly used for natural language processing tasks, such as machine translation, text summarization, or dialogue generation. Seq2seq is not suitable for the credit card fraud detection problem, because the problem is not a sequence-to-sequence task, but a binary classification task. The input and output of the problem are not sequences of words or tokens, but vectors of features and labels.

K-means: K-means is an algorithm that implements a clustering technique, which is a type of unsupervised learning method that can group similar data points into clusters. K-means is mainly used for exploratory data analysis, dimensionality reduction, or anomaly detection. K-means is not suitable for the credit card fraud detection problem, because the problem is not a clustering task, but a classification task. The problem requires using the labeled data to train a model that can predict the labels of new data, not finding the optimal number of clusters or the cluster memberships of the data.

Random Cut Forest (RCF): RCF is an algorithm that implements an anomaly detection technique, which is a type of unsupervised learning method that can identify data points that deviate from the normal behavior or distribution of the data. RCF is mainly used for detecting outliers, frauds, or faults in the data. RCF is not suitable for the credit card fraud detection problem, because the problem is not an anomaly detection task, but a classification task. The problem requires using the labeled data to train a model that can predict the labels of new data, not finding the anomaly scores or the anomalous data points in the data.

References:

XGBoost Algorithm

Use XGBoost for Binary Classification with Amazon SageMaker

Seq2seq Algorithm

K-means Algorithm

[Random Cut Forest Algorithm]

 The best option is to deploy the Lambda function and the ML models onto the AWS IoT Greengrass core that is running on the industrial PCs that are installed on each machine. This way, the inference can be performed locally on the edge devices, without the need to upload the images to Amazon S3 and invoke the SageMaker endpoint. This will reduce the latency and the network bandwidth consumption. The long-running Lambda function can be extended to invoke the Lambda function with the captured images and run the inference on the edge component that forwards the results directly to the web service. This will also simplify the architecture and eliminate the dependency on the internet connection.

Option A is not cost-effective, as it requires setting up a 10 Gbps AWS Direct Connect connection and increasing the size and number of instances for the SageMaker endpoint. This will increase the operational costs and complexity.

Option B is not optimal, as it still requires uploading the images to Amazon S3 and invoking the SageMaker endpoint. Compressing and decompressing the images will add additional processing overhead and latency.

Option C is not sufficient, as it still requires uploading the images to Amazon S3 and invoking the SageMaker endpoint. Auto scaling for SageMaker will help to handle the increased workload, but it will not reduce the latency or the network bandwidth consumption. Setting up an AWS Direct Connect connection will improve the network performance, but it will also increase the operational costs and complexity. References:

AWS IoT Greengrass

Deploying Machine Learning Models to Edge Devices

AWS Certified Machine Learning - Specialty Exam Guide