Mutation Testing for Industrial Robotic Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industrial robotic systems (IRS) are increasingly deployed in diverse environments, where failures can result in severe accidents and costly downtime. Ensuring the reliability of the software controlling these systems is therefore critical. Mutation testing, a technique widely used in software engineering, evaluates the effectiveness of test suites by introducing small faults, or mutants, into the code. However, traditional mutation operators are poorly suited to robotic programs, which involve message-based commands and interactions with the physical world. This paper explores the adaptation of mutation testing to IRS by defining domain-specific mutation operators that capture the semantics of robot actions and sensor readings. We propose a methodology for generating meaningful mutants at the level of high-level read and write operations, including movement, gripper actions, and sensor noise injection. An empirical study on a pick-and-place scenario demonstrates that our approach produces more informative mutants and reduces the number of invalid or equivalent cases compared to conventional operators. Results highlight the potential of mutation testing to enhance test suite quality and contribute to safer, more reliable industrial robotic systems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it