Cited by 129Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesFormal Methods in VerificationSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

Requirements-driven test generation for autonomous vehicles with machine learning components

Open access
Tuncali, Cumhur Erkan, Fainekos, Georgios, Prokhorov, Danil, Ito, Hisahiro, Kapinski, James·2020·IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles are complex systems that are challenging to test and debug. A requirements-driven approach to the development process can decrease the resources required to design and test these systems, while simultaneously increasing the reliability. We present a testing framework that uses signal temporal logic (STL), which is a precise and unambiguous requirements language. Our framework evaluates test cases against the STL formulae and additionally uses the requirements to automatically identify test cases that fail to satisfy the requirements. One of the key features of our tool is the support for machine learning (ML) components in the system design, such as deep neural networks. The framework allows evaluation of the control algorithms, including the ML components, and it also includes models of CCD camera, lidar, and radar sensors, as well as the vehicle environment. We use multiple methods to generate test cases, including covering arrays, which is an efficient method to search discrete variable spaces. The resulting test cases can be used to debug the controller design by identifying controller behaviors that do not satisfy requirements. The test cases can also enhance the testing phase of development by identifying critical corner cases that correspond to the limits of the system's allowed behaviors. We present STL requirements for an autonomous vehicle system, which capture both component-level and system-level behaviors. Additionally, we present three driving scenarios and demonstrate how our requirements-driven testing framework can be used to identify critical system behaviors, which can be used to support the development process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tiv.2019.2955903

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. W. Burgard, U. Franke, M. Enzweiler, and M. Trivedi, "The Mobile Revolution -Machine Intelligence for Autonomous Vehicles (Dagstuhl Seminar 15462)," Dagstuhl Reports, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 62-70, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2016/5764
  2. D. A. Pomerleau, "Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network," in Advances in neural information processing systems, 1989, pp. 305-313.
  3. Y. Tian, K. Pei, S. Jana, and B. Ray, "Deeptest: Automated testing of deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars," in 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2018.
  4. S. M. Loos, A. Platzer, and L. Nistor, "Adaptive cruise control: Hybrid, distributed, and now formally verified," in Formal Methods, ser. LNCS, vol. 6664. Springer, 2011, pp. 42-56.
  5. R. Alur, Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems. MIT Press, 2015.
  6. B. Hoxha, H. Bach, H. Abbas, A. Dokhanchi, Y. Kobayashi, and G. Fainekos, "Towards formal specification visualization for testing and monitoring of cyber-physical systems," in International Workshop on Design and Implementation of Formal Tools and Systems, 2014.
  7. D. R. Kuhn, R. N. Kacker, and Y. Lei, Introduction to combinatorial testing. CRC press, 2013.
  8. R. Schubert, E. Richter, and G. Wanielik, "Comparison and evaluation of advanced motion models for vehicle tracking," in 2008 11th Interna- tional Conference on Information Fusion, June 2008, pp. 1-6.
  9. B. Grabe, T. Ike, and M. Hötter, "Evidence based evaluation method for grid-based environmental representation," in FUSION. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1234-1240.
  10. O. Michel, "Cyberbotics ltd. Webots: professional mobile robot simula- tion," International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 5, 2004.
  11. M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al., "A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise." in Kdd, vol. 96, no. 34, 1996, pp. 226-231.

Authors
Tuncali, C. E., Fainekos, G., Prokhorov, D., Ito, H., & Kapinski, J.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • MathWorks (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles
Published
2020-06
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
265-280
ISSN
  • 2379-8858 (ISSN-L)
  • 2379-8904
OpenAlex
W2965407852
Cited by
129
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3
FWCI
33.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
NSF (CNS 1446730, CNS 1350420)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, test case generation, signal temporal logic, deep neural network, covering arrays, sensor modeling, corner cases, control algorithm evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review