Free Practice Questions for IAPP AIGP Exam

In selecting the specific type of algorithm for the AI solution, the healthcare network's data science team is most important. This team possesses the technical expertise and understanding of the data, the clinical context, and the performance requirements needed to make an informed decision about which algorithm is most suitable. While the cloud provider and consulting firm can offer support and infrastructure, and the AI governance committee provides oversight, the data science team’s specialized knowledge is crucial for selecting and implementing the appropriate algorithm. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge, AI governance and team roles section.

The November 2023 White House Executive Order provides guidance that governmental agencies should limit access to specific uses of generative AI. This means that generative AI tools should be used in a controlled manner, where their applications are restricted to well-defined, approved use cases that ensure the security, privacy, and ethical considerations are adequately addressed. This approach allows for the benefits of generative AI to be harnessed while mitigating potential risks and abuses.

Human-centric AI focuses on improving the human experience by addressing individual needs and enhancing human capabilities. Option D exemplifies this by using virtual assistants to tailor educational content to each student's unique abilities and needs, thereby supporting personalized learning and improving educational outcomes. This use case directly benefits individuals by providing customized assistance and adapting to their learning pace and style, aligning with the principles of human-centric AI.

Differential privacy is a technique used to ensure that the inclusion or exclusion of a single data point does not significantly affect the outcome of any analysis, providing a way to mathematically prove that no specific piece of training data has more than a negligible effect on the model or its output. This is achieved by introducing randomness into the data or the algorithms processing the data. In the context of training large language models (LLMs), differential privacy helps in protecting individual data points while still enabling the model to learn effectively. By adding noise to the training process, differential privacy provides strong guarantees about the privacy of the training data.

The EU AI Act imposes severalmandatory obligationson high-risk AI systems, butpublishing a detailed report on training dataisnotone of them.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“It mandates drawing up technical documentation for high-risk AI systems, and requires high-risk AI systems to come with instructions for use that disclose various information, including characteristics, capabilities and performance limitations.” (p. 34)

“To make high-risk AI systems more traceable, it also requires AI systems to be able to automatically allow for the maintenance of logs throughout the AI life cycle.”

“Conducting post-market monitoring” and “conformity assessments” areexplicitrequirements for high-risk systems. (p. 34–35)

However,publishingdetailed training data is typicallyrequired only for general-purpose AI systems with systemic risk, not standard high-risk AI systems.

A. Log retention,B. Post-market monitoring, andC. Conformity assessmentsareall requiredunder the EU AI Act for high-risk systems.

The most critical reason for documenting AI-related risks is toreduce exposure to legal, regulatory, and reputational liabilities. Clear documentation demonstrates thatrisks were identified, assessed, and addressed, which is essential for accountability and defensibility in the face of audits, litigation, or enforcement actions.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“An effective AI governance model is about collective responsibility… which should encompass oversight mechanisms such as privacy, accountability, compliance.” (p. 13)

“Accountability… is based on the idea that there should be a person or entity that is ultimately responsible for any harm resulting from the use of the data, algorithm and AI system's underlying processes.” (p. 28)

While transparency, alignment with standards, and knowledge sharing are all secondary benefits,risk documentation’s primary role is liability mitigation.

The EU AI Act outlines what must be included intechnical documentationfor high-risk systems. These requirements are designed to supportconformity assessment, transparency, and traceability.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“It mandates drawing up technical documentation… must include a general description of the AI system, the intended purpose, and a detailed description of the elements and development process.” (p. 34)

“Documentation… includes training, testing, evaluation procedures, andappropriateness of performance metrics.” (p. 34–35)

Therisk management systemis addressed separately through arisk management plan, not within the technical documentation itself.

Thus:

A, C, and Dare explicitly required in thetechnical documentation.

B, while important, is part of therisk management process, not a required section oftechnical documentation.

Biasis a common risk acrossboth proprietary and open-source models, andnot uniqueto proprietary deployments. All AI systems — regardless of origin — require evaluation for fairness, accuracy, and representativeness.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Bias, discrimination and fairness challenges are present in both open and closed models, regardless of how the model is sourced.” (p. 41)

The third-party consultant asked each vendor for information about the diversity of their datasets to assist in ensuring the fairness of the AI system. Diverse datasets help prevent biases and ensure that the AI system performs equitably across different demographic groups. This is crucial for a law enforcement application, where fairness and avoiding discriminatory practices are of paramount importance. Ensuring diversity in training data helps in building a more just and unbiased AI system. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Ethical AI and Fairness.

The White House Executive Order of November 2023 designates the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as the responsible body for creating guidelines to conduct red-teaming tests of AI systems. NIST is tasked with developing and providing standards and frameworks to ensure the security, reliability, and ethical deployment of AI systems, including conducting rigorous red-teaming exercises to identify vulnerabilities and assess risks in AI systems.