A Software QA Framework for Autonomous Vehicle Open Source Application: OpenPilot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the deployment of autonomous vehicles (AV) grows, ensuring their reliability and safety becomes paramount. The need for rigorous testing and validation methods is surging. This paper focuses on investigating the resilience of OpenPilot, an open-source driving agent for assisted driving systems, against faults and environmental conditions affecting sensor data, targeting faults that directly impact machine learning (ML) and perception systems, known to be a significant cause of disengagement incidents in AV. To assess the effectiveness and coverage of Open-Pilot's functionalities, we employ standard model-driven test engineering methodology graph coverage testing. A systematic and comprehensive modeling of OpenPilot using graph coverage methodology is proposed, covering three programming scripts and yielding 16 major test case scenarios. This approach enables graph coverage testing on OpenPilot, facilitating evaluation of its performance, robustness, and safety measures. By systematically exploring the system's functionalities and scenarios, we ensure OpenPilot performs as expected and effectively mitigates safety hazards, contributing to the enhancement of autonomous vehicle safety and building confidence in autonomous driving technology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".