MoDitector: Module-Directed Testing for Autonomous Driving Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing Autonomous Driving Systems (ADSs) is crucial for ensuring their safety, reliability, and performance. Despite numerous testing methods available that can generate diverse and challenging scenarios to uncover potential vulnerabilities, these methods often treat ADS as a black-box, primarily focusing on identifying system-level failures like collisions or near-misses without pinpointing the specific modules responsible for these failures. This lack of root causes understanding for the failures hinders effective debugging and subsequent system repair. Furthermore, current approaches often fall short in generating violations that adequately test the individual modules of an ADS from a system-level perspective, such as perception, prediction, planning, and control. To bridge this gap, we introduce MoDitector , a root-cause-aware testing method for ADS that generates safety-critical scenarios specifically designed to expose weaknesses in targeted ADS modules. Unlike existing approaches, MoDitector not only produces scenarios that lead to violations but also pinpoints the specific module responsible for each failure. Specifically, our approach introduces Module-Specific Oracles to automatically detect module-level errors and identify the root-cause module responsible for system-level violations. To effectively generate module-specific failures, we propose a module-directed testing strategy that integrates Module-Specific Feedback and Adaptive Scenario Generation to guide the testing process. We evaluated MoDitector across four critical ADS modules and four representative testing scenarios. The results demonstrate that MoDitector can effectively and efficiently generate scenarios in which failures can be attributed to specific targeted modules. In total, MoDitector generated 216.7 expected scenarios, significantly outperforming the best baseline, which identified only 79.0 scenarios. Our approach represents a significant innovation in ADS testing by focusing on the identification and rectification of module-specific errors within the system, moving beyond conventional black-box failure detection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".