iSQI CT-AI_(v1.0)_World Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Back-to-back testing is a method where the same set of tests are run on multiple implementations of the system to compare their outputs. This type of testing is typically used to ensure consistency and correctness by comparing the outputs of different implementations under identical conditions. Let's analyze the options given:

A. Comparison of the results of a current neural network model ML model implemented in platform A (for example Pytorch) with a similar neural network model ML model implemented in platform B (for example Tensorflow), for the same data.

This option describes a scenario where two different implementations of the same type of model are being compared using the same dataset. This is a typical back-to-back testing situation.

B. Comparison of the results of a home-grown neural network model ML model with results in a neural network model implemented in a standard implementation (for example Pytorch) for the same data.

This option involves comparing a custom implementation with a standard implementation, which is also a typical back-to-back testing scenario to validate the custom model against a known benchmark.

C. Comparison of the results of a neural network ML model with a current decision tree ML model for the same data.

This option involves comparing two different types of models (a neural network and a decision tree). This is not a typical scenario for back-to-back testing because the models are inherently different and would not be expected to produce identical results even on the same data.

D. Comparison of the results of the current neural network ML model on the current data set with a slightly modified data set.

This option involves comparing the outputs of the same model on slightly different datasets. This could be seen as a form of robustness testing or sensitivity analysis, but not typical back-to-back testing as it doesn’t involve comparing multiple implementations.

Based on this analysis, optionCis the one that describes a situation of back-to-back testing the least because it compares two fundamentally different models, which is not the intent of back-to-back testing.

Challenges for Acquiring Test Data in ML Systems:Compliance needs, the changing nature of data over time, and sourcing data from public sources are significant challenges. Data being generated quickly is generally not a challenge; it can actually be beneficial as it provides more data for training and testing.

Reference:ISTQB_CT-AI_Syllabus_v1.0, Sections on Data Preparation and Data Quality Issues​​​​.

Defect prediction models aim to identify parts of the software that are likely to contain defects by analyzing historical data and code quality metrics. The primary goal is to use this predictive information to allocate testing and maintenance resources effectively. Let's break down why option D is the correct choice:

Understanding Classification Models:

Classification models are a type of supervised learning algorithm used to categorize or classify data into predefined classes or labels. In the context of defect prediction, the classification model would classify parts of the code as either "defective" or "non-defective" based on the input features.

Input Data - Code Quality Metrics:

The input data for these classification models typically includes various code quality metrics such as cyclomatic complexity, lines of code, number of methods, depth of inheritance, coupling between objects, etc. These metrics help the model learn patterns associated with defects.

Historical Data:

Historical versions of the code along with their defect records provide the labeled data needed for training the classification model. By analyzing this historical data, the model can learn which metrics are indicative of defects.

Why Option D is Correct:

Option D specifies using a classification model to predict the presence of defects by using code quality metrics as input data. This accurately describes the process of defect prediction using historical bug data and quality metrics.

Eliminating Other Options:

A. Identifying the relationship between developers and the modules developed by them: This does not directly involve predicting defects based on code quality metrics and historical data.

B. Search of similar code based on natural language processing: While useful for other purposes, this method does not describe defect prediction using classification models and code metrics.

C. Clustering of similar code modules to predict based on similarity: Clustering is an unsupervised learning technique and does not directly align with the supervised learning approach typically used in defect prediction models.

References:

ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus, Section 9.5, Metamorphic Testing (MT), describes various testing techniques including classification models for defect prediction.

"Using AI for Defect Prediction" (ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus, Section 11.5.1).