AAT4IRS: automated acceptance testing for industrial robotic systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industrial robotic systems (IRS) consist of industrial robots that automate industrial processes. They accurately perform repetitive tasks, replacing or assisting with dangerous jobs like assembly in the automotive and chemical industries. Failures in these systems can be catastrophic, so it is important to ensure their quality and safety before using them. One way to do this is by applying a software testing process to find faults before they become failures. However, software testing in industrial robotic systems has some challenges. These include differences in perspectives on software testing from people with diverse backgrounds, coordinating and collaborating with diverse teams, and performing software testing within the complex integration inherent in industrial environments. In traditional systems, a well-known development process uses simple, structured sentences in English to facilitate communication between project team members and business stakeholders. This process is called behavior-driven development (BDD), and one of its pillars is the use of templates to write user stories, scenarios, and automated acceptance tests. We propose a software testing (ST) approach called automated acceptance testing for industrial robotic systems (AAT4IRS) that uses natural language to write the features and scenarios to be tested. We evaluated our ST approach through a proof-of-concept, performing a pick-and-place process and applying mutation testing to measure its effectiveness. The results show that the test suites implemented using AAT4IRS were highly effective, with 79% of the generated mutants detected, thus instilling confidence in the robustness of our approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".