ISTQB CT-AI ISTQB Certified Tester AI Testing Exam Exam Practice Test

TheAI Effectis clearly defined in theISTQB Certified Tester AI Testing Syllabus v1.0under Section1.1 – Definition of AI and AI Effect. The document explains that society’s understanding of what qualifies as “AI” changes over time. Technologies once considered AI—such as expert systems from the 1970s and 1980s or early chess-playing systems—are no longer viewed as AI today. This phenomenon is explicitly labeled the“AI Effect,”described as“the changing perception of what constitutes AI.”The syllabus states that as AI capabilities become routine or widely implemented, they often stop being perceived as true artificial intelligence .

Options B, C, and D do not capture this definition. While AI learning from data (B) is a property of ML, it does not describe the shifting perception of AI. Option C describes a technological achievement, not a perceptual shift. Option D references a historical AI milestone (Deep Blue defeating Kasparov) that the syllabus specifically uses as an example of technology that is no longer considered AI due to the AI Effect. Therefore, onlyOption Aaccurately reflects the AI Effect as defined by the ISTQB syllabus.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus (Section5.3 – AI Support for Defect Analysis) explains that AI can categorize defect reports using natural language processing or classification models. Categorization helps route defects efficiently and determine which areas of the system are affected. Thus, OptionCis correct: AI canidentify defect categories, supporting assignment and triage.

Option A is incorrect because ML cannot infer severity or consequence without domain-specific risk modeling. Option B inaccurately ties duplicate detection to criticality; the syllabus separatesduplicate detectionfromseverity analysis. Option D is incorrect because AI may assist in routing defects using categories, but the syllabus does not claim AI identifies specific developers.

Thus,Option Cis the syllabus-accurate statement.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus (Section4.3 – Test Design for AI-Based Systems) highlights pairwise testing as an effectivetest-case reduction techniquefor systems with many input parameters. Lane-keeping assist systems typically include environmental, sensor, and vehicle-dynamic parameters, making exhaustive testing infeasible. Pairwise testing significantly reduces the number of test cases while still capturingall 2-way interactions, which are responsible for a large proportion of software defects.

OptionBaligns with this syllabus description: pairwise testing reduces otherwise extremely large parameter combinations, making test effort manageable.

Option A overstates feasibility guarantees; the syllabus never claims pairwise testing always makes testing “typically feasible.” Option C is unsupported and incorrect because pairwise testing doesnotrestrict parameters to driver-controlled ones. Option D is incorrect because, although some defects arise from higher-order interactions, pairwise testing captures many relevant defects and is widely recognized as a pragmatic compromise.

Thus,Option Bis the correct statement.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus describes thatself-learning systems continuously adjust their behaviorduring operation as new data arrives. Section4.1 – Challenges of Testing AI-Based Systemshighlights that such systems are vulnerable todata attacks, particularly through adversarial inputs, poisoning, or malicious drift. The risk arises because unexpected changes in the input distribution may alter the learned model in harmful ways. OptionD – Unexpected changescorresponds directly to this syllabus-defined risk.

Option A refers to system specification issues but does not relate to data attacks. Option B discusses environment complexity, which makes testing difficult but is not tied to adversarial threats. Option C (insufficient testing time) affects quality but does not specifically increase vulnerability to malicious data manipulation.

Unexpected changes—including data drift, poisoned samples, or maliciously constructed training data—pose the greatest risk. When a self-learning system adapts to altered data patterns, it may unknowingly learn incorrect associations, causing model degradation or manipulation. Therefore,Option Dcorrectly identifies the challenge that increases exposure to data attacks.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus explains in Section1.6 – Machine Learning Approachesthatsupervised learningis appropriate when labeled data exists and the goal is to predict an output based on known historical examples. Predicting a customer’spurchase probabilityis aclassificationtask when the output corresponds to discrete categories such as“likely to purchase”vs.“not likely to purchase.”The syllabus gives similar examples in describing classification as the process of assigning instances to predefined classes based on learned patterns in labeled data. Because the retail company wants to determine whether a customer will make a purchase based on marketing actions, classification is the most appropriate choice .

Option A (regression) predicts continuous numeric values and is less suitable because the task centers oncategorical likelihood, not estimating exact monetary values. Option C (unsupervised learning) is used when labels are not available—here, the company has labeled purchase histories. Option D (reinforcement learning) requires an interactive environment with reward-driven behavior, which is not applicable to this scenario.

Thus,supervised learning (classification)is the most suitable approach according to the syllabus.

Prevalence Rate and Model Performance:

The cancer detection system being developed by "Splendid Healthcare" needs to account for the fact that the type of cancer has a 2% prevalence rate in the population. This indicates that the dataset is highly imbalanced with far fewer positive (cancer) cases compared to negative (normal) cases.

Importance of Recall:

Recall, also known as sensitivity or true positive rate, measures the proportion of actual positive cases that are correctly identified by the model. In medical diagnosis, especially cancer detection, recall is critical because missing a positive case (false negative) could have severe consequences for the patient. Therefore, maximizing recall ensures that most, if not all, cancer cases are detected.

Importance of Precision:

Precision measures the proportion of predicted positive cases that are actually positive. High precision reduces the number of false positives, meaning fewer people will be incorrectly diagnosed with cancer. This is also important to avoid unnecessary anxiety and further invasive testing for those who do not have the disease.

Balancing Recall and Precision:

In scenarios where both false negatives and false positives have significant consequences, it is crucial to balance recall and precision. This balance ensures that the model is not only good at detecting positive cases but also accurate in its predictions, reducing both types of errors.

Accuracy and Specificity:

While accuracy (the proportion of total correct predictions) is important, it can be misleading in imbalanced datasets. In this case, high accuracy could simply result from the model predicting the majority class (normal) correctly. Specificity (true negative rate) is also important, but for a cancer detection system, recall and precision take precedence to ensure positive cases are correctly and accurately identified.

Conclusion:

Therefore, for a cancer detection system with a low prevalence rate, maximizing both recall and precision is crucial to ensure effective and accurate detection of cancer cases.

 Labelling Approaches:Among the options provided, pre-labeled datasets require the least time and effort because the data has already been labeled, eliminating the need for further manual or automated labeling efforts.

 Reference:ISTQB_CT-AI_Syllabus_v1.0, Section 4.5 Data Labelling for Supervised Learning, which discusses various approaches to data labeling, including pre-labeled datasets, and their associated time and effort requirements​​.

Detecting biases in the ML pipeline involves various tests to ensure fairness and accuracy throughout the ML process.

Testing the distribution shift in the training data for inappropriate bias (A): This involves checking if there is any shift in the data distribution that could lead to bias in the model. It is an important test but not the most direct method for detecting biases.

Test the model during model evaluation for data bias (B): This is a critical stage where the model is evaluated to detect any biases in the data it was trained on. It directly addresses potential data biases in the model.

Testing the data pipeline for any sources for algorithmic bias (C): This test is crucial as it helps identify biases that may originate from the data processing and transformation stages within the pipeline. Detecting sources of algorithmic bias ensures that the model does not inherit biases from these processes.

Check the input test data for potential sample bias (D): While this is an important step, it focuses more on the input data and less on the overall data pipeline.

Hence, the most likely useful test to help detect different kinds of biases in the ML pipeline isB. Test the model during model evaluation for data bias.

A. This is an example of expert system bias.

Expert system bias refers to bias introduced by the rules or logic defined by experts in the system, not by the data distribution.

B. This is an example of sample bias.

Sample bias occurs when the training data is not representative of the overall population that the model will encounter in practice. In this case, the over-representation of ethnicity A (70%) compared to B, C, and D (30%) creates a sample bias, as the model may become biased towards better performance on ethnicity A.

C. This is an example of hyperparameter bias.

Hyperparameter bias relates to the settings and configurations used during the training process, not the data distribution itself.

D. This is an example of algorithmic bias.

Algorithmic bias refers to biases introduced by the algorithmic processes and decision-making rules, not directly by the distribution of training data.

Based on the provided information, optionB(sample bias) best describes the situation because the training data is skewed towards ethnicity A, potentially leading to biased model performance​​.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus (Section5.2 – AI for Testing) explains that various AI approaches can support testing activities. Probabilistic methods—one of the three major AI technique groups—are used topredict system failures, especially when dealing with uncertainty, likelihood estimation, and reliability analysis. This aligns precisely with OptionB.

Option A is incorrect because regression test optimization is typically performed usingsearch-based optimization, not classification. Option C is incorrect because fuzzy logic is more suited to reasoning under vagueness, not generating test cases. Option D is incorrect: defect prediction relies on statistical learning or classification models, not computational optimization.

Thus,Option Bis the most syllabus-consistent mapping of AI techniques to testing tasks.

The question asks which characteristic is least likely to cause safety-related issues for an AI system. Let's evaluate each option:

Non-determinism (A): Non-deterministic systems can produce different outcomes even with the same inputs, which can lead to unpredictable behavior and potential safety issues.

Robustness (B): Robustness refers to the ability of the system to handle errors, anomalies, and unexpected inputs gracefully. A robust system is less likely to cause safety issues because it can maintain functionality under varied conditions.

High complexity (C): High complexity in AI systems can lead to difficulties in understanding, predicting, and managing the system's behavior, which can cause safety-related issues.

Self-learning (D): Self-learning systems adapt based on new data, which can lead to unexpected changes in behavior. If not properly monitored and controlled, this can result in safety issues.

The syllabus defines data acquisition as consisting of three steps:

“Data acquisition: The activity of acquiring data relevant to the business problem to be solved by an ML model, typically involving the activities of identifying, gathering and labelling data.”

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 4.1, page 33 of 99)

The syllabus describes exploratory testing as especially useful when there are poor specifications or test oracle problems:

“Exploratory testing is especially useful when there are poor specifications or test oracle problems, which is often the case for AI-based systems.”

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 9.6, page 70 of 99)

A. Identifying suitable tests by looking at the complexity of the test cases.

While complexity analysis can help in selecting important test cases, it does not directly address the issue of optimizing the entire regression suite effectively.

B. Using a random subset of tests.

Randomly selecting test cases may miss critical tests and does not ensure an optimized regression suite. This approach lacks a systematic method for ensuring comprehensive coverage.

C. Automating test scripts using AI-based test automation tools.

Automation helps in running tests efficiently but does not inherently optimize the selection of tests to prevent the suite from growing too large.

D. Using an AI-based tool to optimize the regression test suite by analyzing past test results.

This is the most effective approach as AI-based tools can analyze historical test data, identify patterns, and prioritize tests that are more likely to catch defects based on past results. This method ensures an optimized and manageable regression test suite by focusing on the most impactful test cases.

Therefore, the correct answer isDbecause using an AI-based tool to analyze past test results is the best option to optimize regression test selection and manage the size of the regression suite effectively​​.

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.

The syllabus describes that data pre-processing includes cleaning (e.g., fixing or removing invalid data) and transforming data (e.g., changing data types such as numbers stored as strings).

"Transformation: The format of the given data is changed… converting categorical data into numerical data, changing image formats…"

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 4.1.1, Page 34 of 99)

In the syllabus, theevolutioncharacteristic for AI-based systems means the ability of the system to evolve and adapt its behavior in response to changes in the environment or in its own performance:

"Evolution is the system’s ability to change itself to adapt to new situations, different hardware, or a changing operational environment."

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 2.3)

Section2.2 – Data Preparationand4.1 – Challenges in Testing AI-Based Systemsdescribe difficulties in obtaining and managing large, representative datasets. AI-based systems requirerealistic, diverse, and representativedata reflecting real-world variations. The syllabus emphasizes that assembling such datasets is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and often constrained by availability, privacy, or domain complexity. Option B directly corresponds to these documented challenges.

Option A is incorrect: using the same implementation risksdefect masking, not preventing it; the syllabus warns against this practice. Option C is incorrect because real-world data naturally evolves, and the syllabus notes thatdriftis normal; expecting stable input data contradicts operational reality. Option D is incorrect: although data privacy is important, the syllabus does not claim that artificially generated data always requires legal approval, nor that sanitization/encryption is mandatory for synthetic data.

Thus,Option Baccurately reflects syllabus-defined difficulties in producing representative test data.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus describes theML data preparation workflowin Section2.2 – Data Preparation. Data preparation consists ofdata gathering,cleaning,transformation, andsampling. The syllabus emphasizes that one significant challenge duringdata gatheringis combining data frommultiple heterogeneous sources, which often differ in structure, quality, and format. Ensuring the resulting dataset is accurate, complete, and representative can be complex, making this a critical challenge in the ML workflow. This aligns directly with OptionC.

Option A is incorrect because erroneous data correction is part ofcleaning, not transformation. Option B contradicts the syllabus: while automation can help,not all steps should be automateddue to the need for expert oversight, especially in detecting subtle data quality issues. Option D is incorrect because sampling continues to involve risk—particularly around representativeness—and the syllabus emphasizes caution, not complacency.

Thus, OptionCis the only statement that accurately reflects the syllabus.

TheISTQB Certified Tester AI Testing Syllabus v1.0explicitly categorizes different AI implementation technologies in Section1.4 – AI Technologies. Within this section, AI methods are grouped into categories, one of which is“Reasoning techniques.”These reasoning techniques includerule engines, deductive classifiers, case-based reasoning, and procedural reasoning. Because deductive classifiers are directly listed under this set of reasoning approaches, they are recognized as a reasoning-based AI technology.

Reasoning techniques differ from machine learning approaches because they rely onstructured, predefined rules or logicto reach conclusions. Deductive classifiers use logical inference and symbolic reasoning to classify inputs by applying encoded knowledge. This makes them fundamentally different from statistical or data-driven ML algorithms.

The other options—Linear regression,Random Forest, andGenetic algorithms—are listed by the syllabus asmachine learning techniques, not reasoning methods. Linear regression performs numerical prediction, Random Forest is an ensemble decision-tree ML model, and genetic algorithms are optimization-based ML approaches inspired by evolutionary processes. None of these involve symbolic logical deduction.

Thus, based on the authoritative definitions in the syllabus,Deductive classifiers (Option A)is the only technology classified as a reasoning technique.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus describes severaldata quality aspectsthat affect ML performance. In Section2.2 – Data Preparation, it explains that datasets may suffer from issues such asincomplete data,irrelevant data,incorrect data,unbalanced data, or data lacking preprocessing. “Incomplete data” means thatportions of the required data are missing, often because some time periods, records, or sources were not captured. This aligns exactly with Option A, which correctly identifies missing intervals as incomplete data.

Option B is incorrect: “data not preprocessed” refers to data that has not undergone normalization, cleaning, or transformation—not data recorded incorrectly. Option C is wrong because irrelevant datadoesnegatively affect ML models by introducing noise and unnecessary features. The syllabus explicitly states that including irrelevant features can degrade model learning. Option D is incorrect: “unbalanced data” relates todisproportionate class distribution, not recency or freshness of data.

Thus, OptionAis the only statement that correctly matches the syllabus definition of this data quality aspect.

 Factors Affecting ML Functional Performance:The data pipeline, quality of the labeling, and biased data are all factors that significantly affect the performance of machine learning models. The number of classes, while relevant for the model structure, is not a direct factor affecting the performance metrics such as accuracy or bias.

 Reference:ISTQB_CT-AI_Syllabus_v1.0, Sections on Data Quality and its Effect on the ML Model and ML Functional Performance Metrics​​​​.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus explains that reusing pre-trained models is strongly related tosimilarity between the original task and the new task. Section1.8 – Pre-trained Models and Transfer Learningstates that reuse is effective when the new task is similar to the original one, such as adapting a cat-classifier to classify dog breeds. The syllabus warns about risks related toinput differences,data preparation inconsistencies,inherited shortcomings, andexplainability issues. These are legitimate objections (matching options A, B, and C) because large differences in image inputs or patterns can undermine transfer learning; misclassification risk can increase; and explainability often decreases when reusing pre-trained models .

However,output differences are NOT a valid concernhere. Both the leaf-based and flower-based ML models classifythe same plant species, meaning theiroutputs are identical. The syllabus does not identify output mismatch as a transfer-learning risk. Real risks concerninputs,bias inheritance,model transparency, andtraining differences—not output labels. Therefore, OptionDdescribes an objection that can be safelyneglected, because output classes are the same and do not hinder reuse.

 A. This statement is incorrect. Current AI is true AI and there is no reason to believe that this fact will change over time.

AI is an evolving field, and the definition of what constitutes AI can change as technology advances.

 B. This statement is correct. In general, what is considered AI today may change over time.

The term AI is dynamic and has evolved over the years. What is considered AI today might be viewed as standard computing in the future. Historically, as technologies become mainstream, they often cease to be considered "AI".

 C. This statement is incorrect. What is considered AI today will continue to be AI even as technology evolves and changes.

This perspective does not account for the historical evolution of the definition of AI. As new technologies emerge, the boundaries of AI shift.

 D. This statement is correct. In general, today the term AI is utilized incorrectly.

While some may argue this, it is not a universal truth. The term AI encompasses a broad range of technologies and applications, and its usage is generally consistent with current technological capabilities.

The syllabus states:

"Concept drift occurs when the operational environment changes without the trained model changing correspondingly. The outputs of the model become less accurate and less useful. Therefore, the operational model should be regularly evaluated against its acceptance criteria."

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 7.6, Page 54 of 99)

Section2.10 – Explainability and Transparencyof the ISTQB CT-AI syllabus describes explainable AI as the ability of a system to provide human-understandable insight into its decisions. The syllabus referencesThe Royal Society’s reportas a foundational source explaining why explainability is important. Among the stated motivations is the need toincrease user trust and confidencein AI systems by making their decisions understandable and justifiable. Therefore, OptionCdirectly reflects the syllabus content .

Option A is incorrect because interpretability doesnotrefer to determining correctness of outputs; rather, it refers to understandinghowthe model arrives at outputs. Option B incorrectly frames explainability as the ability to investigate algorithms or training data; explainability is aboutunderstanding the model’s decision-making, not reverse engineering its components. Option D is incorrect because explainability doesnoteliminate the need for risk and vulnerability assessments; the syllabus clearly emphasizes that testing, risk assessment, and robustness checks remain critical even when a model is explainable.

Thus, the only statement consistent with the syllabus isOption C.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus explains ML performance metrics in Section3.2 – Evaluating ML Models. Forclustering, which is an unsupervised learning method, the syllabus lists metrics such asintra-cluster distance,inter-cluster distance, and coherence measures. Intra-cluster metrics evaluate how close data points are within a cluster, which directly corresponds to Option A.

Option B is incorrect becauseR-squaredis a regression metric measuring goodness-of-fit, not classification performance, and has no connection to ROC curves. Option C is wrong because thesilhouette coefficientis also a clustering metric, measuring cohesion vs. separation—not regression accuracy. Option D is incorrect because ROC curves evaluatebinary or multiclass classification, not clustering.

Thus, OptionAis the only accurate statement based on the syllabus.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus (Section4.3 – Test Environments for AI Systems) describes that, unlike conventional software testing, testing AI systems may requirespecialized toolsfor analyzing and explaining the decisions of ML models. This includes visualization tools, explainability frameworks, and diagnostic utilities to understand why the AI made a certain prediction. Since AI decisions may be non-transparent, the test environment must supportexplainability, making OptionBcorrect.

Option A is incorrect: the syllabus does not state that an autonomous AI system requires an autonomous test environment. Option C is incorrect because test environments mustnot learn; they must remain stable to avoid unpredictable testing conditions. Option D is incorrect because multi-agent systems often involve stochastic interactions, and determinism is neither required nor realistic.

Thus,Option Bis the syllabus-accurate choice.

Section1.6.3 – Reinforcement Learningof the ISTQB CT-AI syllabus states that reinforcement learning (RL) is based on anagent interacting with an environment, performing actions, and receivingrewards or penalties. The core concept is thereward function, which guides the agent’s learning process. The syllabus emphasizes that training in RL isdriven by rewards, and the agent aims to maximize cumulative reward over time. Therefore, OptionCdirectly reflects the correct description: the agent learns by being rewarded for successful actions .

Option A is incorrect because RL doesnotuse labeled data; that applies to supervised learning. Option B contradicts the syllabus definition: RL fundamentallyrequiresinteraction with the environment. Option D is incorrect because the reward function isdefined by humans, not learned by the agent; the agent learns apolicy, not the reward function itself.

Thus, OptionCis the only statement consistent with RL as defined in the syllabus.

The syllabus highlights that on-device training and processing require considerable computational power, which may exceed the capabilities of some mobile devices:

"Self-learning and continuous learning systems require large amounts of computational power, which can impact system performance and stability if the hardware is not powerful enough."

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 2.3, page 22 of 99)

The syllabus defines back-to-back testing as a method to compare a modified AI system to the previous version, which is ideal in this scenario:

"Back-to-back testing is performed by comparing the outputs of two systems that are supposed to provide the same outputs, one being a known and trusted system and the other being the test system. This approach can be used to test ML systems after re-training to verify that improvements have not introduced regressions."

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 9.3, page 67 of 99)

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus explains in Section3.2 – Functional Performance Criteria of ML Modelsthat accuracy becomes unreliable whenclass imbalanceexists. In fraud detection, more than 99% of transactions are non-fraudulent, meaning the dataset is extremely imbalanced. Because accuracy counts all correct non-fraudulent classifications, it will appear artificially high, even if the fraud detection performance is poor. Therefore, accuracy is not suitable for evaluating fraud detection systems.

The syllabus further explains thatsensitivity (recall)captures the proportion of correctly identified fraudulent cases. This metric is important, as missing fraudulent events can cause high financial loss. However, the client also stresses thatlegitimate transactions must be correctly identified, meaningfalse positives must be minimizedto maintain customer satisfaction.

TheF1 score, defined as the harmonic mean ofprecision and recall, balances both:

Precision protects legitimate customers by minimizing false alarms.

Recall ensures fraudulent transactions are detected.

Section 3.2 emphasizes that when both false positives and false negatives have significant consequences, and the data is highly imbalanced,F1 is the most appropriate metricbecause it reflects the combined importance of detecting fraud while avoiding unnecessary alerts. Thus,Option Cis the correct choice.

 Coverage for Neuron Activation Values:Sign change coverage is used to ensure that test cases cause each neuron to achieve both positive and negative activation values. This type of coverage ensures that the neurons are thoroughly tested under different activation states.

 Reference:ISTQB_CT-AI_Syllabus_v1.0, Section 6.2 Coverage Measures for Neural Networks, which details different types of coverage measures, including sign change coverage​​.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus definesoverfittingin Section3.2 – ML Model Evaluationas a condition where an ML model learns the training data too precisely—including noise and irrelevant detail—resulting in poor performance on unseen data. Overfitting is characterized byhigh accuracy on training data but low accuracy on validation or real-world data. OptionAperfectly matches this definition: a model trained only on one university’s student data generalizes poorly to students from other universities. This is a textbook example of overfitting because the model has essentially memorized patterns unique to a narrow dataset, instead of learning generalizable relationships applicable across environments .

Option B instead describessample biasor inadequate training diversity, not overfitting. Option C involvestransfer learningor model extension, unrelated to overfitting. Option D indicatesinsufficient training data qualityor lack of meaningful features, but not overfitting. Only Option A reflects the syllabus definition directly: overly specialized training leading to reduced predictive performance on new data.

Thus,Ais the correct and syllabus-aligned example of overfitting.

For AI-enabled medical devices, the most required aspects for certification are safety, transparency, and side effects. Here’s why:

Safety (Aspect III): Critical for ensuring that the AI system does not cause harm to patients.

Transparency (Aspect IV): Important for understanding and verifying the decisions made by the AI system.

Side Effects (Aspect V): Necessary to identify and mitigate any unintended consequences of the AI system.

Why Not Other Options:

Autonomy and Maintainability (Aspects I and II): While important, they are secondary to the immediate concerns of safety, transparency, and managing side effects in life-critical processes.

The syllabus details that threshold coverage requires each neuron to achieve an activation value greater than a specified threshold:

"Threshold coverage: Full threshold coverage requires that each neuron in the neural network achieves an activation value greater than a specified threshold."

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 6.2, page 48 of 99)