Pass the Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Associate MLA-C01 Questions and answers with Dumpstech

The primary requirement in this scenario is achieving sub-second latency for a real-time analytics dashboard powered by Amazon OpenSearch Service. The current architecture uses Amazon Data Firehose, which buffers incoming records based on time or size before delivering them to the destination. A buffer interval of 60 seconds introduces unavoidable latency, making it unsuitable for near-real-time or sub-second use cases.

According to AWS documentation, reducing or eliminating buffering in Firehose is the correct approach when low-latency ingestion is required. Setting the Firehose buffer interval to zero seconds forces Firehose to deliver records as soon as they are received. Additionally, tuning the PutRecordBatch batch size allows efficient ingestion while minimizing delivery delay. This configuration is explicitly recommended for latency-sensitive analytics pipelines.

Option B is incorrect because AWS DataSync is designed for batch-oriented data transfers between storage systems, not real-time streaming. Enhanced fan-out consumers are a feature of Amazon Kinesis Data Streams, not DataSync, making this option invalid.

Option C directly contradicts the requirement. Increasing the buffer interval from 60 seconds to 120 seconds would further increase latency and degrade real-time performance.

Option D is also incorrect because Amazon SQS is a message queueing service, not a streaming ingestion service optimized for indexing data into OpenSearch with minimal latency. Using SQS would add additional processing layers and would not inherently provide sub-second ingestion into OpenSearch.

Therefore, using zero buffering in the Firehose stream and tuning the PutRecordBatch batch size is the only change that aligns with AWS best practices for achieving sub-second latency in real-time analytics pipelines.

AWS recommends Amazon SageMaker Model Monitor for detecting data drift and model drift in deployed models. Model Monitor works by comparing live inference data against a baseline, which must first be created from the training dataset.

AWS documentation clearly specifies the required order:

Create a baseline using training data statistics

Create a monitoring schedule to compare incoming data against the baseline

Option A reverses this order and is therefore incorrect. Option C is incorrect because SageMaker Clarify focuses on bias and explainability, not ongoing drift detection. Option D is reactive and does not provide continuous monitoring.

Model Monitor integrates with Amazon CloudWatch, enabling automated alerts and downstream retraining workflows. This proactive approach allows companies to detect degradation early and maintain model quality.

Therefore, Option B is the correct and AWS-verified answer.

Amazon Q Business provides built-in guardrails to control and constrain model responses. One such control is the ability to define blocked phrases, which explicitly prevents specified terms from appearing in generated responses.

Configuring the competitor’s name as a blocked phrase guarantees that Amazon Q Business will never include that name in responses, fully meeting the requirement. This approach is deterministic and does not rely on ranking or retrieval behavior.

Option B is incorrect because retrievers control what documents are fetched, not how responses are generated. Option C adds unnecessary complexity and does not guarantee exclusion in generated answers. Option D only deprioritizes content and does not prevent it from appearing.

Therefore, blocking the competitor’s name is the correct solution.

Amazon SageMaker Serverless Inference is designed for irregular or unpredictable traffic patterns. It automatically provisions and scales compute resources based on request volume and scales down to zero when idle, making it the most cost-effective option.

Serverless inference supports payloads up to 6 MB and request durations up to 60 seconds, which comfortably meets the stated constraints. Customers are billed only for actual compute usage during inference execution, not for idle capacity.

Asynchronous inference is intended for long-running jobs (up to 1 hour) and large payloads (up to 1 GB). Real-time inference requires always-on instances, increasing cost during idle periods. Batch transform is designed for offline processing.

Therefore, serverless inference is the optimal choice.

Dynamic data masking allows you to control how sensitive data is presented to users at query time, without modifying or storing transformed versions of the source data. Amazon Redshift supports dynamic data masking, which can be implemented with minimal effort. This solution ensures that the data scientist can access the required information while sensitive data remains protected, meeting the requirements efficiently and with the least implementation effort.

For real-time anomaly detection on streaming data, AWS recommends using Amazon Managed Service for Apache Flink, which provides serverless, scalable stream processing with built-in ML functions.

Apache Flink includes a native RANDOM_CUT_FOREST (RCF) function for unsupervised anomaly detection. This eliminates the need to deploy, manage, or scale custom ML endpoints. When combined with Amazon Kinesis Data Streams, the solution can process thousands of records per second with very low latency.

Option B introduces multiple services and custom logic, increasing operational overhead. Option C requires managing EC2 infrastructure and Kafka clusters. Option D is batch-oriented and does not meet real-time requirements.

AWS documentation explicitly highlights Kinesis + Managed Flink + RCF as the lowest-overhead solution for real-time anomaly detection.

Therefore, Option A is the correct and AWS-aligned choice.

This is a regression problem, where the target variable is continuous and numeric. AWS documentation clearly states that classification metrics such as accuracy and AUC are not appropriate for regression models.

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) measures the square root of the average squared differences between predicted and actual values. RMSE penalizes larger errors more heavily, making it especially useful when large prediction errors are costly or undesirable.

SageMaker Canvas automatically selects regression metrics such as RMSE and MAE when building regression models. RMSE is widely used for time-based and numeric prediction problems, especially when evaluating long historical datasets.

Inference latency measures system performance, not model accuracy.

Therefore, Option D is the correct and AWS-verified answer.

When predicting continuous variables, such as apartment prices, it's essential to evaluate the model's performance using appropriate regression metrics. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) is a widely used metric for this purpose.

Understanding Mean Absolute Error (MAE):

MAE measures the average magnitude of errors in a set of predictions, without considering their direction. It calculates the average absolute difference between predicted values and actual values, providing a straightforward interpretation of prediction accuracy.

Advantages of MAE:

Interpretability: MAE is expressed in the same units as the target variable, making it easy to understand.

Robustness to Outliers: Unlike metrics that square the errors (e.g., Mean Squared Error), MAE does not disproportionately penalize larger errors, making it more robust to outliers.

Comparison with Other Metrics:

Accuracy, AUC, F1 Score: These metrics are designed for classification tasks, where the goal is to predict discrete labels. They are not suitable for regression problems involving continuous target variables.

Mean Squared Error (MSE): While MSE also measures prediction errors, it squares the differences, giving more weight to larger errors. This can be useful in certain contexts but may be sensitive to outliers.

Conclusion:

For evaluating the performance of a model predicting apartment prices—a continuous variable—MAE is an appropriate and effective metric. It provides a clear indication of the average prediction error in the same units as the target variable, facilitating straightforward interpretation and comparison.

Step 1

Upload the existing models to the same Amazon S3 bucket path.

Multi-model endpoints require all models to be stored under a single S3 prefix so SageMaker can dynamically load them on demand.

Step 2

Create a SageMaker AI model with multi-model endpoints enabled.

This creates a SageMaker model resource that uses a multi-model–capable container (for example, XGBoost, PyTorch, or TensorFlow MME-compatible containers).

Step 3

Create an endpoint configuration that references a multi-model container.

The endpoint configuration defines:

Instance type

Initial instance count

The multi-model container reference

Step 4

Deploy a real-time inference endpoint by using the endpoint configuration.

Real-time endpoints ensure low-latency inference, which is a strict customer requirement.

Step 5

Update the models to use the new endpoint ID. Pass the model IDs to the new endpoint.

Each inference request specifies a model ID so SageMaker knows which model to load from S3.

Amazon SageMaker batch transform is ideal for obtaining inferences from large datasets in an asynchronous manner, as it processes data in batches rather than requiring real-time inputs.

SageMaker Model Monitor allows scheduled monitoring of data quality, detecting shifts in input data characteristics, and generating alerts when changes in data quality occur.

This solution provides a fully managed, efficient way to handle both asynchronous inference and data quality monitoring with minimal operational overhead.