Professional-Machine-Learning-Engineer Exam Dumps : Google Professional Machine Learning Engineer

AI Platform Training is a service that allows you to run your machine learning training jobs on Google Cloud using various features, model architectures, and hyperparameters. You can use AI Platform Training to scale up your training jobs, leverage distributed training, and access specialized hardware such as GPUs and TPUs1. AI Platform Training supports several pre-built containers that provide different ML frameworks and dependencies, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, scikit-learn, and XGBoost2. However, if the ML framework and related dependencies that you need are not supported by the pre-built containers, you can build your own custom containers and use them to run your training jobs on AI Platform Training3.

Custom containers are Docker images that you create to run your training application. By using custom containers, you can specify and pre-install all the dependencies needed for your application, and have full control over the code, serving, and deployment of your model4. Custom containers also enable you to run distributed training jobs on AI Platform Training, which can help you train large-scale and complex models faster and more efficiently5. Distributed training is a technique that splits the training data and computation across multiple machines, and coordinates them to update the model parameters. AI Platform Training supports two types of distributed training: parameter server and collective all-reduce. The parameter server architecture consists of a set of workers that perform the computation, and a set of servers that store and update the model parameters. The collective all-reduce architecture consists of a set of workers that perform the computation and synchronize the model parameters among themselves. Both architectures also have a scheduler that coordinates the workers and servers.

For the use case of training a custom neural network that uses critical dependencies specific to your organization’s framework, the best option is to build your custom containers to run distributed training jobs on AI Platform Training. This option allows you to use the ML framework and dependencies of your choice, and train your model on multiple machines without having to manage the infrastructure. Since your ML framework of choice uses the scheduler, workers, and servers distribution structure, you can use the parameter server architecture to run your distributed training job on AI Platform Training. You can specify the number and type of machines, the custom container image, and the training application arguments when you submit your training job. Therefore, building your custom containers to run distributed training jobs on AI Platform Training is the best option for this use case.

References:

AI Platform Training documentation

Pre-built containers for training

Custom containers for training

Custom containers overview | Vertex AI | Google Cloud

Distributed training overview

[Types of distributed training]

[Distributed training architectures]

[Using custom containers for training with the parameter server architecture]

Option A is incorrect because training a time-series model to predict the machines’ performance values, and configuring an alert if a machine’s actual performance values significantly differ from the predicted performance values, is not the best way to build a predictive maintenance solution that uses monitoring data from the VMs to detect potential failures and then alerts the service desk team. This option assumes that the performance values follow a predictable pattern, which may not be the case for complex systems. Moreover, this option does not use any historical incident data, which may contain useful information for identifying failures. Furthermore, this option does not involve any model evaluation or validation, which are essential steps for ensuring the quality and reliability of the model.

Option B is correct because implementing a simple heuristic (e.g., based on z-score) to label the machines’ historical performance data, and training a model to predict anomalies based on this labeled dataset, is a reasonable way to build a predictive maintenance solution that uses monitoring data from the VMs to detect potential failures and then alerts the service desk team. This option uses a simple and fast method to label the historical performance data, which is necessary for supervised learning. A z-score is a measure of how many standard deviations a value is away from the mean of a distribution1. By using a z-score, we can label the performance values that are unusually high or low as anomalies, which may indicate failures. Then, we can train a model to learn the patterns of normal and anomalous performance values, and use it to predict anomalies on new data. We can also evaluate and validate the model using metrics such as precision, recall, or F1-score, and compare it with other models or methods.

Option C is incorrect because developing a simple heuristic (e.g., based on z-score) to label the machines’ historical performance data, and testing this heuristic in a production environment, is not a safe way to build a predictive maintenance solution that uses monitoring data from the VMs to detect potential failures and then alerts the service desk team. This option does not involve any model training or evaluation, which are essential steps for ensuring the quality and reliability of the solution. Moreover, this option does not test the heuristic on a separate dataset, such as a validation or test set, before deploying it to production, which may lead to errors or failures in the production environment.

Option D is incorrect because hiring a team of qualified analysts to review and label the machines’ historical performance data, and training a model based on this manually labeled dataset, is not a feasible way to build a predictive maintenance solution that uses monitoring data from the VMs to detect potential failures and then alerts the service desk team. This option may produce high-quality labels, but it is also costly, time-consuming, and prone to human errors or biases. Moreover, this option may not scale well with large or complex datasets, which may require more analysts or more time to label.

References:

Z-score

[Predictive maintenance]

[Anomaly detection]

[Time-series analysis]

[Model evaluation]

The best option for resolving the training-serving skew alert is to update the model monitoring job to use the more recent training data that was used to retrain the model. This option can help align the baseline distribution of the model monitoring job with the current distribution of the production data, and eliminate the false positive alerts. Model Monitoring is a service that can track and compare the results of multiple machine learning runs. Model Monitoring can monitor the model’s prediction input data for feature skew and drift. Training-serving skew occurs when the feature data distribution in production deviates from the feature data distribution used to train the model. If the original training data is available, you can enable skew detection to monitor your models for training-serving skew. Model Monitoring uses TensorFlow Data Validation (TFDV) to calculate the distributions and distance scores for each feature, and compares them with a baseline distribution. The baseline distribution is the statistical distribution of the feature’s values in the training data. If the distance score for a feature exceeds an alerting threshold that you set, Model Monitoring sends you an email alert. However, if you retrain the model with more recent training data, and deploy it back to the Vertex AI endpoint, the baseline distribution of the model monitoring job may become outdated and inconsistent with the current distribution of the production data. This can cause the model monitoring job to generate false positive alerts, even if the model performance is not deteriorated. To avoid this problem, you need to update the model monitoring job to use the more recent training data that was used to retrain the model. This can help the model monitoring job to recalculate the baseline distribution and the distance scores, and compare them with the current distribution of the production data. This can also help the model monitoring job to detect any true positive alerts, such as a sudden change in the production data that causes the model performance to degrade1.

The other options are not as good as option B, for the following reasons:

Option A: Updating the model monitoring job to use a lower sampling rate would not resolve the training-serving skew alert, and could reduce the accuracy and reliability of the model monitoring job. The sampling rate is a parameter that determines the percentage of prediction requests that are logged and analyzed by the model monitoring job. Using a lower sampling rate can reduce the storage and computation costs of the model monitoring job, but also the quality and validity of the data. Using a lower sampling rate can introduce sampling bias and noise into the data, and make the model monitoring job miss some important features or patterns of the data. Moreover, using a lower sampling rate would not address the root cause of the training-serving skew alert, which is the mismatch between the baseline distribution and the current distribution of the production data2.

Option C: Temporarily disabling the alert, and enabling the alert again after a sufficient amount of new production traffic has passed through the Vertex AI endpoint, would not resolve the training-serving skew alert, and could expose the model to potential risks and errors. Disabling the alert would stop the model monitoring job from sending email notifications when the distance score for a feature exceeds the alerting threshold, but it would not stop the model monitoring job from calculating and comparing the distributions and distance scores. Therefore, disabling the alert would not address the root cause of the training-serving skew alert, which is the mismatch between the baseline distribution and the current distribution of the production data. Moreover, disabling the alert would prevent the model monitoring job from detecting any true positive alerts, such as a sudden change in the production data that causes the model performance to degrade. This can expose the model to potential risks and errors, and affect the user satisfaction and trust1.

Option D: Temporarily disabling the alert until the model can be retrained again on newer training data, and retraining the model again after a sufficient amount of new production traffic has passed through the Vertex AI endpoint, would not resolve the training-serving skew alert, and could cause unnecessary costs and efforts. Disabling the alert would stop the model monitoring job from sending email notifications when the distance score for a feature exceeds the alerting threshold, but it would not stop the model monitoring job from calculating and comparing the distributions and distance scores. Therefore, disabling the alert would not address the root cause of the training-serving skew alert, which is the mismatch between the baseline distribution and the current distribution of the production data. Moreover, disabling the alert would prevent the model monitoring job from detecting any true positive alerts, such as a sudden change in the production data that causes the model performance to degrade. This can expose the model to potential risks and errors, and affect the user satisfaction and trust. Retraining the model again on newer training data would create a new model version, but it would not update the model monitoring job to use the newer training data as the baseline distribution. Therefore, retraining the model again on newer training data would not resolve the training-serving skew alert, and could cause unnecessary costs and efforts1.

References:

Preparing for Google Cloud Certification: Machine Learning Engineer, Course 3: Production ML Systems, Week 4: Evaluation

Google Cloud Professional Machine Learning Engineer Exam Guide, Section 3: Scaling ML models in production, 3.3 Monitoring ML models in production

Official Google Cloud Certified Professional Machine Learning Engineer Study Guide, Chapter 6: Production ML Systems, Section 6.3: Monitoring ML Models

Using Model Monitoring

Understanding the score threshold slider

Sampling rate