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

 The best solution to reduce the cost of the notebook instance and the data preprocessing job is to change the notebook instance type to a smaller general-purpose instance, stop the notebook when it is not in use, and run data preprocessing on an ml.r5 instance with the same memory size as the ml.m5.4xlarge instance by using Amazon SageMaker Processing. This solution will result in the most cost savings because:

Changing the notebook instance type to a smaller general-purpose instance will reduce the hourly cost of running the notebook, since the feature engineering development does not require high CPU and memory resources. For example, an ml.t3.medium instance costs $0.0464 per hour, while an ml.m5.4xlarge instance costs $0.888 per hour1.

Stopping the notebook when it is not in use will also reduce the cost, since the notebook will only incur charges when it is running. For example, if the notebook is used for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, then stopping it when it is not in use will save about 76% of the monthly cost compared to leaving it running all the time2.

Running data preprocessing on an ml.r5 instance with the same memory size as the ml.m5.4xlarge instance by using Amazon SageMaker Processing will reduce the cost of the data preprocessing job, since the ml.r5 instance is optimized for memory-intensive workloads and has a lower cost per GB of memory than the ml.m5 instance. For example, an ml.r5.4xlarge instance has 128 GB of memory and costs $1.008 per hour, while an ml.m5.4xlarge instance has 64 GB of memory and costs $0.888 per hour1. Therefore, the ml.r5.4xlarge instance can process the same amount of data in half the time and at a lower cost than the ml.m5.4xlarge instance. Moreover, using Amazon SageMaker Processing will allow the data preprocessing job to run on a separate, fully managed infrastructure that can be scaled up or down as needed, without affecting the notebook instance.

The other options are not as effective as option C for the following reasons:

Option A is not optimal because changing the notebook instance type to a memory optimized instance with the same vCPU number as the ml.m5.4xlarge instance has will not reduce the cost of the notebook, since the memory optimized instances have a higher cost per vCPU than the general-purpose instances. For example, an ml.r5.4xlarge instance has 16 vCPUs and costs $1.008 per hour, while an ml.m5.4xlarge instance has 16 vCPUs and costs $0.888 per hour1. Moreover, running both data preprocessing and feature engineering development on the same instance will not take advantage of the scalability and flexibility of Amazon SageMaker Processing.

Option B is not suitable because running data preprocessing on a P3 instance type with the same memory as the ml.m5.4xlarge instance by using Amazon SageMaker Processing will not reduce the cost of the data preprocessing job, since the P3 instance type is optimized for GPU-based workloads and has a higher cost per GB of memory than the ml.m5 or ml.r5 instance types. For example, an ml.p3.2xlarge instance has 61 GB of memory and costs $3.06 per hour, while an ml.m5.4xlarge instance has 64 GB of memory and costs $0.888 per hour1. Moreover, the data preprocessing job does not require GPU, so using a P3 instance type will be wasteful and inefficient.

Option D is not feasible because running data preprocessing on an R5 instance with the same memory size as the ml.m5.4xlarge instance by using the Reserved Instance option will not reduce the cost of the data preprocessing job, since the Reserved Instance option requires a commitment to a consistent amount of usage for a period of 1 or 3 years3. However, the data preprocessing job only runs once a day on average and completes in only 2 hours, so it does not have a consistent or predictable usage pattern. Therefore, using the Reserved Instance option will not provide any cost savings and may incur additional charges for unused capacity.

Amazon SageMaker Pricing

Manage Notebook Instances - Amazon SageMaker

Amazon EC2 Pricing - Reserved Instances

 The issue described in the question is a sign of overfitting, which is a common problem in machine learning when the model learns the noise and details of the training data too well and fails to generalize to new and unseen data. Overfitting can result in a low training error rate but a high test error rate, which indicates poor performance and validity of the model. There are several techniques that can be used to prevent or reduce overfitting, such as data augmentation and regularization.

Data augmentation is a technique that applies various transformations to the original training data, such as rotation, scaling, cropping, flipping, adding noise, changing brightness, etc., to create new and diverse data samples. Data augmentation can increase the size and diversity of the training data, which can help the model learn more features and patterns and reduce the variance of the model. Data augmentation is especially useful for image data, as it can simulate different scenarios and perspectives that the model may encounter in real life. For example, in the question, the device uses a camera to observe drivers’ behavior, so data augmentation can help the model deal with different lighting conditions, angles, distances, etc. Data augmentation can be done using various libraries and frameworks, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, Keras, OpenCV, etc12

Regularization is a technique that adds a penalty term to the model’s objective function, which is typically based on the model’s parameters. Regularization can reduce the complexity and flexibility of the model, which can prevent overfitting by avoiding learning the noise and details of the training data. Regularization can also improve the stability and robustness of the model, as it can reduce the sensitivity of the model to small fluctuations in the data. There are different types of regularization, such as L1, L2, dropout, etc., but they all have the same goal of reducing overfitting. L2 regularization, also known as weight decay or ridge regression, is one of the most common and effective regularization techniques. L2 regularization adds the squared norm of the model’s parameters multiplied by a regularization parameter (lambda) to the model’s objective function. L2 regularization can shrink the model’s parameters towards zero, which can reduce the variance of the model and improve the generalization ability of the model. L2 regularization can be implemented using various libraries and frameworks, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, Keras, Scikit-learn, etc34

The other options are not valid or relevant for resolving the issue of overfitting. Adding vanishing gradient to the model is not a technique, but a problem that occurs when the gradient of the model’s objective function becomes very small and the model stops learning. Making the neural network architecture complex is not a solution, but a possible cause of overfitting, as a complex model can have more parameters and more flexibility to fit the training data too well. Using gradient checking in the model is not a technique, but a debugging method that verifies the correctness of the gradient computation in the model. Gradient checking is not related to overfitting, but to the implementation of the model.

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.

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]