Google Professional-Machine-Learning-Engineer Exam Dumps Questions and Answers

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 creating a Dataflow pipeline for real-time anomaly detection is to load the model directly into the Dataflow job as a dependency, and use it for prediction. This option has the following advantages:

It minimizes the serving latency, as the model prediction logic is executed within the same Dataflow pipeline that ingests and processes the data. There is no need to invoke external services or containers, which can introduce network overhead and latency.

It simplifies the deployment and management of the model, as the model is packaged with the Dataflow job and does not require a separate service or container. The model can be updated by redeploying the Dataflow job with a new model version.

It leverages the scalability and reliability of Dataflow, as the model prediction logic can scale up or down with the data volume and handle failures and retries automatically.

The other options are less optimal for the following reasons:

Option A: Containerizing the model prediction logic in Cloud Run, which is invoked by Dataflow, introduces additional latency and complexity. Cloud Run is a serverless platform that runs stateless containers, which means that the model prediction logic needs to be initialized and loaded every time a request is made. This can increase the cold start latency and reduce the throughput. Moreover, Cloud Run has a limit on the number of concurrent requests per container, which can affect the scalability of the model prediction logic. Additionally, this option requires managing two separate services: the Dataflow pipeline and the Cloud Run container.

Option C: Deploying the model to a Vertex AI endpoint, and invoking this endpoint in the Dataflow job, also introduces additional latency and complexity. Vertex AI is a managed service that provides various tools and features for machine learning, such as training, tuning, serving, and monitoring. However, invoking a Vertex AI endpoint from a Dataflow job requires making an HTTP request, which can incur network overhead and latency. Moreover, this option requires managing two separate services: the Dataflow pipeline and the Vertex AI endpoint.

Option D: Deploying the model in a TFServing container on Google Kubernetes Engine, and invoking it in the Dataflow job, also introduces additional latency and complexity. TFServing is a high-performance serving system for TensorFlow models, which can handle multiple versions and variants of a model. However, invoking a TFServing container from a Dataflow job requires making a gRPC or REST request, which can incur network overhead and latency. Moreover, this option requires managing two separate services: the Dataflow pipeline and the Google Kubernetes Engine cluster.

References:

[Dataflow documentation]

[TensorFlow documentation]

[Cloud Run documentation]

[Vertex AI documentation]

[TFServing documentation]

 Vertex AI Experiments is a service that allows you to track, compare, and optimize your ML experiments on Google Cloud. You can use Vertex AI Experiments to log metrics and parameters from your TensorFlow models, and then visualize them in Vertex AI TensorBoard. Vertex AI TensorBoard is a managed service that provides a web interface for viewing and debugging your ML experiments. You can use Vertex AI TensorBoard to compare different runs, inspect model graphs, analyze scalars, histograms, images, and more. By using Vertex AI Experiments and Vertex AI TensorBoard, you can simplify your ML experiment tracking and visualization workflow, and avoid the overhead of setting up and maintaining your own Cloud Functions, Cloud Storage buckets, or VMs. References:

[Vertex AI Experiments documentation]

[Vertex AI TensorBoard documentation]

Preparing for Google Cloud Certification: Machine Learning Engineer Professional Certificate