ISTQB CT-AI 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.

The syllabus explains that EDA can be used to analyze data to identify outliers and unusual patterns, which can indicate adversarial attacks like data poisoning:

"Testing to detect data poisoning is possible using EDA, as poisoned data may show up as outliers."

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 9.1.2, page 67 of 99)

Section5.3 – AI Support for Defect Predictionof the ISTQB CT-AI syllabus explains that AI-based defect prediction models rely onhistorical patterns, including past defects, code behavior, and similar system configurations. ML models trained on prior defect data can identifycomponents likely to contain defectswhen new changes resemble previous defect-inducing patterns. This directly supports OptionA, which states that defect prediction is most effective when based on previous similar constellations.

Option B is incorrect: ML can predictwhich componentsare likely to fail, not only whether defects exist. Option C is incomplete; code metrics help, but defect prediction relies onmanycontextual features (historical defects, code churn, commit frequency, etc.). Option D is wrong because defect prediction isnotbased on formal principles and typically requiresmany features, not just a few.

Thus,Option Ais the correct and syllabus-consistent answer.