Legit CT-AI_(v1.0)_World Exam Download

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).

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.

A. Add 10% of the rows randomly and create another model and compare the R-Square scores of both the models.

Adding more data to the training set can affect the R-Square score, but it does not directly verify the correctness of the implementation.

B. Train various models by changing the order of input features and verify that the R-Square score of these models vary significantly.

Changing the order of input features should not significantly affect the R-Square score if the implementation is correct, but this approach is more about testing model robustness rather than correctness of the implementation.

C. Compare the R-Square score of the model obtained using two different implementations that utilize two different programming languages while using the same algorithm and the same training and testing data.

This approach directly compares the performance of two implementations of the same algorithm. If both implementations produce similar R-Square scores on the same training and testing data, it suggests that the new implementation "X" is correct.

D. Drop 10% of the rows randomly and create another model and compare the R-Square scores of both the models.

Dropping data can lead to variations in the R-Square score but does not directly verify the correctness of the implementation.

Therefore, optionCis the most appropriate strategy because it directly compares the performance of the new implementation "X" with another implementation using the same algorithm and datasets, which helps in verifying the correctness of the implementation​​.

In a neural network, the activation value of a neuron is determined by a combination of inputs from the previous layer, the weights of the connections, and the bias at the neuron level. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Inputs for Activation Value:

Activation Values of Neurons in the Previous Layer:These are the outputs from neurons in the preceding layer that serve as inputs to the current neuron.

Weights Assigned to the Connections:Each connection between neurons has an associated weight, which determines the strength and direction of the input signal.

Individual Bias at the Neuron Level:Each neuron has a bias value that adjusts the input sum, allowing the activation function to be shifted.

Calculation:

The activation value is computed by summing the weighted inputs from the previous layer and adding the bias.

Formula: z=∑(wi⋅ai)+bz = \sum (w_i \cdot a_i) + bz=∑(wi​⋅ai​)+b, where wiw_iwi​ are the weights, aia_iai​ are the activation values from the previous layer, and bbb is the bias.

The activation function (e.g., sigmoid, ReLU) is then applied to this sum to get the final activation value.

Why Option A is Correct:

Option A correctly identifies all components involved in computing the activation value: the individual bias, the activation values of the previous layer, and the weights of the connections.

Eliminating Other Options:

B. Activation values of neurons in the previous layer, and weights assigned to the connections between the neurons: This option misses the bias, which is crucial.

C. Individual bias at the neuron level, and weights assigned to the connections between the neurons: This option misses the activation values from the previous layer.

D. Individual bias at the neuron level, and activation values of neurons in the previous layer: This option misses the weights, which are essential.

References:

ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus, Section 6.1, Neural Networks, discusses the components and functioning of neurons in a neural network.

"Neural Network Activation Functions" (ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus, Section 6.1.1).