Testing CPS With Design Assumptions-Based Metamorphic Relations and Genetic Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) software is used to enforce desired behaviours on physical systems. To test the interaction between the CPS software and the system’s physics, engineers provide traces of desired physical states and observe traces of the actual physical states. CPS requirements describe how closely the actual physical traces should track the desired traces. These requirements are typically defined for specific, simple input traces such as step or ramp sequences, and thus are not applicable to arbitrary inputs. This limits the availability of oracles for CPSs. Our recent work proposes an approach to testing CPSs using control-theoretical design assumptions instead of requirements. This approach circumvents the oracle problem by leveraging the control-theoretical guarantees that are provided when the design assumptions are satisfied. To address the test case generation and oracle problems, researchers have proposed metamorphic testing, which is based on the study of relations across tests, i.e., metamorphic relations (MRs).In this work, we define MRs based on the design assumptions and explore combinations of these MRs using genetic programming to generate CPS test cases. This enables the generation of CPS input traces with potentially arbitrary shapes, together with associated expected output traces. We use the deviation from the expected output traces to guide the generation of input traces that falsify the MRs. Our experiment results show that the MR-falsification provides engineers with new information, helping them identify passed and failed test cases. Furthermore, we show that the generation of traces that falsify the MRs is a non-trivial problem, which cannot be addressed with a random generation approach but is successfully addressed by our approach based on genetic search.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".