MLS-C01 Leak Questions

Page: 7 / 22

Question 28

A machine learning (ML) specialist needs to extract embedding vectors from a text series. The goal is to provide a ready-to-ingest feature space for a data scientist to develop downstream ML predictive models. The text consists of curated sentences in English. Many sentences use similar words but in different contexts. There are questions and answers among the sentences, and the embedding space must differentiate between them.

Which options can produce the required embedding vectors that capture word context and sequential QA information? (Choose two.)

Options:

Amazon SageMaker seq2seq algorithm

Amazon SageMaker BlazingText algorithm in Skip-gram mode

Amazon SageMaker Object2Vec algorithm

Amazon SageMaker BlazingText algorithm in continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) mode

Combination of the Amazon SageMaker BlazingText algorithm in Batch Skip-gram mode with a custom recurrent neural network (RNN)

Answer:

B, E

Explanation:

To capture word context and sequential QA information, the embedding vectors need to consider both the order and the meaning of the words in the text.

Option B, Amazon SageMaker BlazingText algorithm in Skip-gram mode, is a valid option because it can learn word embeddings that capture the semantic similarity and syntactic relations between words based on their co-occurrence in a window of words. Skip-gram mode can also handle rare words better than continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) mode1.

Option E, combination of the Amazon SageMaker BlazingText algorithm in Batch Skip-gram mode with a custom recurrent neural network (RNN), is another valid option because it can leverage the advantages of Skip-gram mode and also use an RNN to model the sequential nature of the text. An RNN can capture the temporal dependencies and long-term dependencies between words, which are important for QA tasks2.

Option A, Amazon SageMaker seq2seq algorithm, is not a valid option because it is designed for sequence-to-sequence tasks such as machine translation, summarization, or chatbots. It does not produce embedding vectors for text series, but rather generates an output sequence given an input sequence3.

Option C, Amazon SageMaker Object2Vec algorithm, is not a valid option because it is designed for learning embeddings for pairs of objects, such as text-image, text-text, or image-image. It does not produce embedding vectors for text series, but rather learns a similarity function between pairs of objects4.

Option D, Amazon SageMaker BlazingText algorithm in continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) mode, is not a valid option because it does not capture word context as well as Skip-gram mode. CBOW mode predicts a word given its surrounding words, while Skip-gram mode predicts the surrounding words given a word. CBOW mode is faster and more suitable for frequent words, but Skip-gram mode can learn more meaningful embeddings for rare words1.

References:

1: Amazon SageMaker BlazingText

2: Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs)

3: Amazon SageMaker Seq2Seq

4: Amazon SageMaker Object2Vec

Question 29

A power company wants to forecast future energy consumption for its customers in residential properties and commercial business properties. Historical power consumption data for the last 10 years is available. A team of data scientists who performed the initial data analysis and feature selection will include the historical power consumption data and data such as weather, number of individuals on the property, and public holidays.

The data scientists are using Amazon Forecast to generate the forecasts.

Which algorithm in Forecast should the data scientists use to meet these requirements?

Options:

Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (AIRMA)

Exponential Smoothing (ETS)

Convolutional Neural Network - Quantile Regression (CNN-QR)

Prophet

Question 30

A Machine Learning Specialist is using an Amazon SageMaker notebook instance in a private subnet of a corporate VPC. The ML Specialist has important data stored on the Amazon SageMaker notebook instance's Amazon EBS volume, and needs to take a snapshot of that EBS volume. However the ML Specialist cannot find the Amazon SageMaker notebook instance's EBS volume or Amazon EC2 instance within the VPC.

Why is the ML Specialist not seeing the instance visible in the VPC?

Options:

Amazon SageMaker notebook instances are based on the EC2 instances within the customer account, but

they run outside of VPCs.

Amazon SageMaker notebook instances are based on the Amazon ECS service within customer accounts.

Amazon SageMaker notebook instances are based on EC2 instances running within AWS service

accounts.

Amazon SageMaker notebook instances are based on AWS ECS instances running within AWS service

accounts.

Question 31

A company's machine learning (ML) specialist is designing a scalable data storage solution for Amazon SageMaker. The company has an existing TensorFlow-based model that uses a train.py script. The model relies on static training data that is currently stored in TFRecord format.

What should the ML specialist do to provide the training data to SageMaker with the LEAST development overhead?

Options:

Put the TFRecord data into an Amazon S3 bucket. Use AWS Glue or AWS Lambda to reformat the data to protobuf format and store the data in a second S3 bucket. Point the SageMaker training invocation to the second S3 bucket.

Rewrite the train.py script to add a section that converts TFRecord data to protobuf format. Point the SageMaker training invocation to the local path of the data. Ingest the protobuf data instead of the TFRecord data.

Use SageMaker script mode, and use train.py unchanged. Point the SageMaker training invocation to the local path of the data without reformatting the training data.

Use SageMaker script mode, and use train.py unchanged. Put the TFRecord data into an Amazon S3 bucket. Point the SageMaker training invocation to the S3 bucket without reformatting the training data.