Amazon AWS Certified Machine Learning Engineer - Associate MLA-C01 Practice Test Questions, Exam Dumps

Practice Exams:

View All

AWS Certified Machine Learning Engineer - Associate MLA-C01 AmazonPractice Test Questions and Exam Dumps

Question No 1:

A software development company is creating a web-based AI application using Amazon SageMaker. The application's architecture includes machine learning (ML) experimentation, model training, deployment, and monitoring. An essential component is a central model registry to manage various model versions. All training data resides in Amazon S3, and data security and isolation are mandatory throughout the ML lifecycle. The company aims to maintain minimal operational overhead while managing and versioning its ML models.

What is the most operationally efficient way to version and manage models centrally within this AI application, while ensuring scalability and minimal maintenance?

Answer: C. Use the SageMaker Model Registry and model groups to catalog the models.

Explanation:

Amazon SageMaker provides a Model Registry, which is a fully managed component that allows users to catalog, version, and manage their ML models. It supports grouping models and controlling access permissions, making it ideal for secure and scalable model lifecycle management.

In this case, the company needs a centralized solution to manage multiple versions of models with minimal manual work. By leveraging SageMaker Model Registry with model groups, each model family can be organized into its own group, and each version of the model is automatically tracked within that group. This greatly reduces the operational complexity compared to managing models manually using containers or tagging systems.

Let’s analyze the options:

Option A (Separate ECR repositories): Maintaining a separate Amazon ECR repository per model leads to significant operational overhead. Managing repositories, pushing containers, and tracking versions manually is error-prone and not scalable.
Option B (ECR with tags): Using ECR with tags is better than separate repositories but still lacks the integrated version tracking and approval workflow that SageMaker Model Registry offers.
Option C (Correct - Model Registry with model groups): This provides a scalable and integrated way to group models, track their versions, associate metadata, and control access. It supports CI/CD pipelines and makes it easier to deploy specific versions for staging or production.
Option D (Model Registry with tags): While tagging can add metadata, relying solely on tags for version control lacks the structure and clarity of using model groups, especially when managing many models.

In summary, using SageMaker Model Registry with model groups provides the lowest operational overhead, built-in version control, integration with SageMaker Pipelines, and enhanced security through IAM policies. This is the most scalable and maintainable approach for enterprise-level ML model management.

Question No 2:

A company is using Amazon SageMaker to develop an AI application. The application includes regular ML experimentation and training. Training jobs are frequently executed in sequence, and reducing the startup time of each job is a priority. The training data is securely stored in Amazon S3, and the company wants to improve efficiency while maintaining security and scalability.

Which SageMaker feature should the company use to minimize the infrastructure startup time between consecutive training jobs?

Answer: B. Use SageMaker managed warm pools.

Explanation:

When machine learning models are trained on SageMaker, each training job typically provisions a new set of infrastructure (i.e., compute instances), initializes the environment, and then begins training. This provisioning can introduce delays, especially when training jobs are run sequentially or in high frequency.

To reduce this overhead, SageMaker Managed Warm Pools can be used. Warm pools allow you to reuse the infrastructure (instances and containers) from a previously completed job, avoiding the need to fully reinitialize the environment. This leads to significantly faster startup times, especially in scenarios involving iterative development or parameter tuning.

Let’s analyze the options:

Option A (Managed Spot Training): This is a cost-saving feature that utilizes spare AWS compute capacity. However, it doesn't reduce startup time. In fact, spot instance availability might increase wait times during training job provisioning.
Option B (Correct - Warm Pools): Warm pools are specifically designed to minimize startup latency. After a training job finishes, SageMaker can keep the infrastructure “warm” so subsequent jobs can reuse it. This is ideal for consecutive or frequent training jobs.
Option C (SageMaker Training Compiler): This improves training efficiency by optimizing the model code for hardware acceleration, but it does not affect infrastructure startup time.
Option D (SMDDP library): This helps with distributed training and scaling to multiple nodes efficiently but does not address startup latency.

SageMaker managed warm pools are highly beneficial for scenarios involving hyperparameter tuning, iterative model training, and retraining pipelines, where jobs are frequently launched in a repeatable environment. Additionally, warm pools are fully managed by AWS, requiring no manual configuration to maintain or reuse infrastructure. This results in lower latency without adding operational burden.

In conclusion, Option B (Warm Pools) offers the most efficient solution for minimizing infrastructure startup time during frequent ML training cycles on Amazon SageMaker.

Question No 3:

A software company is developing a cloud-based AI application using Amazon SageMaker. The application’s architecture includes capabilities such as machine learning (ML) experimentation, model training, a central model registry, model deployment to real-time endpoints, and model monitoring for quality and drift detection. All training data is securely stored in Amazon S3, and access must remain isolated throughout the ML lifecycle to meet compliance requirements.

A key business requirement is to introduce a manual approval-based control mechanism within the ML workflow. This is to ensure that only explicitly approved models are promoted from development or staging environments to production endpoints.

What is the most suitable and effective solution to implement this manual approval workflow, ensuring that only authorized models are deployed to production, while maintaining secure and automated CI/CD integration?

A. Use SageMaker Experiments to facilitate the approval process during model registration.
B. Use SageMaker ML Lineage Tracking on the central model registry. Create tracking entities for the approval process.
C. Use SageMaker Model Monitor to evaluate the performance of the model and to manage the approval.
D. Use SageMaker Pipelines. When a model version is registered, use the AWS SDK to change the approval status to "Approved."

Correct Answer:

D. Use SageMaker Pipelines. When a model version is registered, use the AWS SDK to change the approval status to "Approved."

Explanation:

In Amazon SageMaker, managing the end-to-end ML lifecycle efficiently and securely is crucial—especially when deploying models to production. One of the key steps in MLOps (Machine Learning Operations) is the ability to control which models are allowed to go live, based on quality, performance, or compliance checks.

SageMaker offers a Model Registry, which stores and versions trained models and supports lifecycle stages like “Approved”, “PendingApproval”, and “Rejected.” By default, models are registered with a “PendingApproval” status, which aligns perfectly with manual approval workflows.

The most effective and operationally efficient solution to implement a manual approval workflow is to integrate this process within SageMaker Pipelines (Option D). Here's how:

SageMaker Pipelines orchestrates ML workflows such as training, evaluation, and registration.
After a model completes training and evaluation steps, it is automatically registered into the Model Registry using the RegisterModel step.
The model’s approval status can be set using the AWS SDK or Boto3. For example, a manual review process can be added before the approval status is changed to “Approved.”
You can implement a manual approval step using SageMaker pipeline logic or external triggers (e.g., AWS Lambda + human review).
Only models with the status “Approved” can be deployed to production using a conditional deployment step in the pipeline or an automated CI/CD process.

This approach enforces strong governance and control while still benefiting from automated workflows.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. SageMaker Experiments: These track training runs, parameters, and metrics but are not designed to manage model version approvals. They help with reproducibility, not deployment governance.
B. SageMaker Lineage Tracking: Useful for tracing the origin of artifacts like datasets and models, but not for enforcing approval workflows. It lacks built-in control over deployment stages.
C. SageMaker Model Monitor: Monitors models for bias and drift after deployment. It does not control whether a model should be approved or deployed initially.

SageMaker Pipelines combined with the Model Registry’s approval status feature provides a robust mechanism to implement manual model approval. It ensures that only validated and authorized models are promoted to production, satisfying compliance and quality assurance needs while remaining integrated into the automated ML workflow.

Question No 4:

A tech-driven enterprise is developing a cloud-native AI application leveraging Amazon SageMaker to manage the end-to-end machine learning lifecycle. The application includes support for model experimentation, training, centralized model registry, model deployment, and continuous model monitoring.

To maintain regulatory compliance and ensure fairness in predictions, the organization wants to proactively monitor bias drift in real-time models. These models are deployed as SageMaker real-time endpoints and interact with live user data. The training data resides securely in Amazon S3, and the company must enforce secure and isolated processing throughout the ML workflow.

Additionally, the monitoring process should be on-demand, triggered as needed, rather than on a fixed schedule.

Which approach will best meet the company's requirement to monitor bias drift on-demand for deployed models?

A. Configure the application to invoke an AWS Lambda function that runs a SageMaker Clarify job.
B. Invoke an AWS Lambda function to pull the sagemaker-model-monitor-analyzer built-in SageMaker image.
C. Use AWS Glue Data Quality to monitor bias.
D. Use SageMaker notebooks to compare the bias.

Correct Answer: A. Configure the application to invoke an AWS Lambda function that runs a SageMaker Clarify job.

Explanation:

Bias detection and mitigation are critical aspects of responsible AI, especially for models operating in real-time environments. Bias drift occurs when the data characteristics change over time in ways that introduce or amplify bias in the model’s predictions. In Amazon SageMaker, SageMaker Clarify is the purpose-built tool that supports both bias detection and explainability across the ML lifecycle.

In this scenario, the company wants an on-demand workflow to analyze bias drift for deployed models. Option A, which proposes using AWS Lambda to invoke a SageMaker Clarify job, directly meets this need.

Here’s why:

SageMaker Clarify can evaluate both pre-training and post-training bias. For real-time deployed models, you can set up a Clarify processing job to compare recent inference data against the original training distribution to detect bias drift.
By wrapping this Clarify job invocation within an AWS Lambda function, the workflow becomes fully event-driven or on-demand. For example, the application can trigger Lambda manually or based on thresholds, user requests, or monitoring signals.
The Lambda function can access data from Amazon S3, launch a Clarify processing job with the appropriate configurations (e.g., sensitive features, labels), and store the results for review.
This architecture remains secure and isolated, since Lambda and Clarify both operate within the AWS environment and can be configured with appropriate IAM roles and S3 access policies.

Why the other options are incorrect:

Option B: The sagemaker-model-monitor-analyzer image is used by Model Monitor for automatic baseline and drift monitoring—not bias detection specifically. It does not natively handle bias metrics like Clarify does. Also, invoking it directly via Lambda is a complex, low-level operation not suited for ad hoc bias analysis.
Option C: AWS Glue Data Quality is a tool for profiling and ensuring the integrity of data within ETL pipelines. It is not designed to detect algorithmic or statistical bias in ML models.
Option D: While SageMaker notebooks offer flexibility, they are manual and developer-driven. They are not suitable for repeatable, automated, or on-demand execution without significant customization.

In summary, Option A provides a clean, serverless, and purpose-built solution for on-demand bias drift detection in a real-time AI system. It leverages the full capabilities of SageMaker Clarify, integrates easily with SageMaker endpoints and S3, and aligns with best practices for responsible AI and model governance.

Question No 5:

An ML engineer is designing a fraud detection system using AWS. The training data consists of multiple data sources, including:

Transaction logs and customer profiles stored in Amazon S3, and
Relational data stored in an on-premises MySQL database.

These datasets need to be aggregated and prepared for training machine learning models. However, the engineer faces two challenges:

There is a significant class imbalance in the dataset, which negatively affects model training.
Many features in the dataset are interdependent, making it difficult for the algorithm to learn all relevant patterns.

To efficiently prepare the data for ML training and resolve the issue of disparate data sources, the engineer needs to choose an AWS service or feature that can ingest, catalog, and unify structured and unstructured data from both on-premises and cloud sources.

Which AWS service or feature is best suited for this task?

A. Amazon EMR Spark jobs
B. Amazon Kinesis Data Streams
C. Amazon DynamoDB
D. AWS Lake Formation

Correct Answer: D. AWS Lake Formation

Explanation:

Building a reliable and scalable fraud detection system requires not only selecting the right machine learning algorithm but also preparing high-quality data from diverse sources. In this scenario, the engineer is working with a hybrid data environment — some data is stored in Amazon S3 (cloud), while other data resides in an on-premises MySQL database. Additionally, the data includes structured (tables) and semi-structured (logs, profiles) formats.

This calls for a robust data ingestion and cataloging mechanism that can unify these sources before model training begins.

Why Not the Other Options?

A. Amazon EMR Spark jobs
While Spark on EMR is powerful for processing and transforming large datasets, it doesn’t natively provide a mechanism for aggregating and cataloging data from multiple sources like S3 and on-premises databases. It is best suited for processing already ingested data, not unifying it at the source.
B. Amazon Kinesis Data Streams
Kinesis is ideal for real-time streaming data, such as telemetry or live events. However, the case study focuses on batch historical data stored in S3 and on-prem databases, not streaming data. Therefore, Kinesis is not appropriate.
C. Amazon DynamoDB
DynamoDB is a NoSQL database for low-latency applications. It cannot ingest or unify data from external sources like MySQL or S3. It is designed for application data storage, not data integration.

Why AWS Lake Formation is the Best Choice:

AWS Lake Formation is purpose-built to centralize, catalog, and manage large-scale datasets from various sources. It enables you to:

Ingest and unify data from cloud (S3) and on-premises sources like MySQL using AWS Glue connectors.
Create a data lake where data is organized, cleaned, and classified for ML use.
Use built-in data cataloging capabilities through the AWS Glue Data Catalog, making data discoverable and queryable using tools like Amazon Athena or Amazon SageMaker.
Set up granular access controls to ensure secure data access across services and teams.

Additionally, once the data is unified and structured using Lake Formation, the ML engineer can use Amazon SageMaker for building and training models while addressing class imbalance via data augmentation or resampling techniques.

Question No 6:

An ML engineer is developing a regression-based machine learning model to predict housing prices for homes of similar sizes. The model will use multiple features to estimate the price of each property, and the dataset includes a variety of data types, such as numerical, categorical, and compound fields.

To optimize model performance and ensure that the input features are in a suitable format for the training algorithm, the engineer is planning to apply the following feature engineering techniques:

Feature Splitting: Breaking a compound feature (e.g., address or date) into individual components such as year, month, or zip code.
Logarithmic Transformation: Applying a log transformation to skewed numerical data (e.g., prices) to normalize the distribution.
One-hot Encoding: Transforming categorical variables into binary vectors (e.g., converting "neighborhood" into multiple columns for each neighborhood).
Standardized Distribution: Normalizing features so they have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1, typically for features with different units or scales.

You are provided with the following features:

Price
Date Sold
Neighborhood
Square Footage
Latitude and Longitude

From the list of feature engineering techniques, choose the most appropriate technique for three of the above features. Each technique should be selected once or not at all.

Correct Answers:

Price → Logarithmic Transformation
Date Sold → Feature Splitting
Neighborhood → One-hot Encoding

Explanation:

Feature engineering is a crucial step in building effective machine learning models. It transforms raw data into meaningful inputs that improve model accuracy and training efficiency. In this scenario, we are dealing with a housing price prediction model, and various feature types need to be preprocessed differently.

Price is the target variable and typically follows a right-skewed distribution, especially in real estate datasets where high-end properties inflate the mean. Applying a logarithmic transformation to price helps reduce skewness and makes the distribution more normally distributed, which is beneficial for regression models like linear regression. It improves model stability, reduces the impact of outliers, and often leads to better predictive performance.

Dates contain multiple underlying components that may influence home prices differently. For example, the year, month, or even day of the week when a home was sold can correlate with seasonal trends, market conditions, or buyer behavior. Instead of feeding the entire timestamp as a single feature, it’s common to split the "Date Sold" field into separate features such as year_sold, month_sold, or quarter_sold. This allows the model to learn from these individual time-related components more effectively.

Neighborhood is a categorical feature with no inherent ordinal relationship between values (e.g., “Downtown” is not more or less than “Uptown”). Since most ML models cannot handle categorical text natively, we use one-hot encoding to convert each category into a separate binary column. For instance, if there are three neighborhoods, the one-hot encoder creates three columns with 0/1 indicating the presence of each.

This transformation enables models to process categorical variables numerically without assuming any implicit ranking.

Other Features (Why Not Chosen):

Square Footage: This is a continuous, numerical feature. While it could be standardized, it is not strictly required unless used with algorithms sensitive to feature scale (e.g., k-NN or SVM). In this case, since only three techniques are required, it’s excluded.
Latitude and Longitude: These features represent spatial coordinates. Proper handling might involve spatial clustering or distance-based transformation—not covered by the techniques listed here.

In summary, the selected feature engineering techniques align with best practices for real-world ML workflows and contribute to building an accurate housing price prediction model.