Parameter Coverage for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems under Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous Driving Systems (ADSs) are promising, but must show they are secure and trustworthy before adoption. Simulation-based testing is a widely adopted approach, where the ADS is run in a simulated environment over specific scenarios. Coverage criteria specify what needs to be covered to consider the ADS sufficiently tested. However, existing criteria do not guarantee to exercise the different decisions that the ADS can make, which is essential to assess its correctness. ADSs usually compute their decisions using parameterised rule-based systems and cost functions, such as cost components or decision thresholds. In this article, we argue that the parameters characterise the decision process, as their values affect the ADS’s final decisions. Therefore, we propose parameter coverage, a criterion requiring to cover the ADS’s parameters. A scenario covers a parameter if changing its value leads to different simulation results, meaning it is relevant for the driving decisions made in the scenario. Since ADS simulators are slightly uncertain, we employ statistical methods to assess multiple simulation runs for execution difference and coverage. Experiments using the Autonomoose ADS show that the criterion discriminates between different scenarios and that the cost of computing coverage can be managed with suitable heuristics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".