Detecting Feature-Interaction Symptoms in Automotive Software using Lightweight Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern automotive software systems are large, complex, and feature rich; they can contain over 100 million lines of code, comprising hundreds of features distributed across multiple electronic control units (ECUs), all operating in parallel and communicating over a CAN bus. Because they are safety-critical systems, the problem of possible Feature Interactions (FIs) must be addressed seriously; however, traditional detection approaches using dynamic analyses are unlikely to scale to the size of these systems. We are investigating an approach that detects static source-code patterns that are symptomatic of FIs. The tools report Feature-Interaction warnings, which can be investigated further by engineers to determine if they represent true FIs and if those FIs are problematic. In this paper, we present our preliminary toolchain for FI detection. First, we extract a collection of static “facts” from the source code, such as function calls, variable assignments, and messages between features. Next, we perform relational algebra transformations on this factbase to infer additional “facts” that represent more complicated design information about the code, such as potential information flows and data dependencies; then, the full collection of “facts” is matched against a curated set of patterns for FI symptoms. We present a set of five patterns for FIs in automotive software as well a case study in which we applied our tools to the Autonomoose autonomous-driving software, developed at the University of Waterloo. Our approach identified 1,444 possible FIs in this codebase, of which 10% were classified as being probable interactions worthy of further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".