Automated Test Validators for Flaky Cyber-Physical System Simulators: Approach and Evaluation

August 28, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· + Add venue

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Baharin A. Jodat, Khouloud Gaaloul, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Shiva Nejati arXiv ID 2508.20902 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 0 Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Simulation-based testing of cyber-physical systems (CPS) is costly due to the time-consuming execution of CPS simulators. In addition, CPS simulators may be flaky, leading to inconsistent test outcomes and requiring repeated test re-execution for reliable test verdicts. Many test inputs within the input space of CPS may not effectively exercise the behaviour of the system under test (SUT) -- for instance, those that violate system preconditions, exceed operational design domain (ODD) limits, or represent inherently safe scenarios. In this article, we propose to use test validators to filter out such test inputs before execution. We describe two methods for generating test validators: one using genetic programming (GP) that employs well-known spectrum-based fault localization (SBFL) ranking formulas, namely Ochiai, Tarantula, and Naish, as fitness functions; and the other using decision trees (DT) and decision rules (DR). We evaluate our test validators through case studies in the domains of aerospace, networking and autonomous driving. We show that test validators generated using GP with Ochiai are significantly more accurate than those generated using GP with Tarantula and Naish or using DT or DR. Moreover, this accuracy advantage remains even when accounting for the flakiness of the simulator. We further show that our test validators generated by GP with Ochiai are robust against flakiness with only 4% average variation in their accuracy results across four different network and autonomous-driving systems with flaky behaviours. Finally, we show that, on average, 88.7% of the assertions inferred by our approach align or overlap with requirements precondition violations, ODD-limit violations, and nominal safe conditions extracted from technical standards and empirical results in the literature.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted