A Survey on Automated Driving System Testing: Landscapes and Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated Driving Systems ( ADS ) have made great achievements in recent years thanks to the efforts from both academia and industry. A typical ADS is composed of multiple modules, including sensing, perception, planning, and control, which brings together the latest advances in different domains. Despite these achievements, safety assurance of ADS is of great significance, since unsafe behavior of ADS can bring catastrophic consequences. Testing has been recognized as an important system validation approach that aims to expose unsafe system behavior; however, in the context of ADS, it is extremely challenging to devise effective testing techniques, due to the high complexity and multidisciplinarity of the systems. There has been great much literature that focuses on the testing of ADS, and a number of surveys have also emerged to summarize the technical advances. Most of the surveys focus on the system-level testing performed within software simulators, and they thereby ignore the distinct features of different modules. In this article, we provide a comprehensive survey on the existing ADS testing literature, which takes into account both module-level and system-level testing. Specifically, we make the following contributions: (1) We survey the module-level testing techniques for ADS and highlight the technical differences affected by the features of different modules; (2) we also survey the system-level testing techniques, with focuses on the empirical studies that summarize the issues occurring in system development or deployment, the problems due to the collaborations between different modules, and the gap between ADS testing in simulators and the real world; and (3) we identify the challenges and opportunities in ADS testing, which pave the path to the future research in this field.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".