Reinforcement Learning Informed Evolutionary Search for Autonomous Systems Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary search (ES)-based techniques are commonly used for testing autonomous robotic systems. However, these approaches often rely on computationally expensive simulator-based models for test scenario evaluation. To improve the computational efficiency of the search-based testing, we propose augmenting the ES with a reinforcement learning (RL) agent trained using surrogate rewards derived from domain knowledge. In our approach, known as RIGAA (Reinforcement learning Informed Genetic Algorithm for Autonomous systems testing), we first train an RL agent to learn useful constraints of the problem and then use it to produce a certain part of the initial population of the search algorithm. By incorporating an RL agent into the search process, we aim to guide the algorithm towards promising regions of the search space from the start, enabling more efficient exploration of the solution space. We evaluate RIGAA on two case studies: maze generation for an autonomous “Ant” robot and road topology generation for an autonomous vehicle lane-keeping assist system. In both case studies, RIGAA reveals more failures of a high level of diversity than the compared baselines. RIGAA also outperforms the state-of-the-art tools for vehicle lane-keeping assist system testing, such as AmbieGen, CRAG, WOGAN, and Frenetic in terms of the number of revealed failures in a two-hour budget.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".