Papers for

automotive testing teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Simulation gaps challenge testing accuracy for automated driving systems

The Reality Gap in Automated Driving Systems Testing: Landscape, Challenges, and Research Directions

Abstract: Simulation is essential for testing automated driving systems (ADS), but discrepancies between simulation and reality can undermine testing conclusions. It remains unclear which discrepancies the literature addresses and what evidence supports correspondence claims. We present a systematic mapping of 235 primary studies that measure or mitigate the reality gap in ADS testing, selected from 4,195 publications. We characterise objectives, targets, approaches, experimental setups, and evaluation evidence. Our classification distinguishes simulated and real-world execution across six ADS test components, separately for each approach and its evaluation reference. This distinguishes real-world information used to construct an approach from evidence used to evaluate its claims. Of the included studies, 76% address mitigation, primarily targeting scenario and actor realism and perception, while 94% report validation or measurement procedures. Only 61 studies report metrics from multiple families covering sensor/perception correspondence, ADS behaviour, vehicle dynamics, or safety outcomes; this coverage does not establish causal links between discrepancies and test verdicts. The synthesis highlights that real-world content and physical execution must be interpreted against the claim evaluated. The findings motivate claim-specific evaluation and component-level reporting to establish which discrepancies affect testing conclusions and when simulation evidence supports conclusions about real-world ADS behaviour.

Wed 28 OctSoftware EngineeringRobotics
The gist
Testing self-driving cars often uses computer simulations because testing in the real world can be difficult or unsafe. But simulations don't always match reality, which can lead to incorrect conclusions about how well these systems work. The authors looked at over 200 studies to see how researchers measure and fix the differences between simulation and reality. They found most work focuses on making scenarios and perceptions more realistic but that many studies lack clear evidence linking simulation problems to actual safety impacts. Their analysis suggests tests should clearly state which real-world differences matter and report on specific parts of the self-driving system.
Open → 2610.38628v1

AI automates automotive software design and testing for safe vehicles

AI-Based End-to-End Automotive Design and Software Development for SDVs

Abstract: This paper explores the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enable end-to-end automotive design and software development for Software-Defined Vehicles (SDVs). Based on our contributions within the Central Car Server (CeCaS) and follow-up EU-funded projects, we present an AI-driven toolchain integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) to automate the transformation of natural-language requirements into system architectures, executable software, and validation artifacts. The approach emphasizes traceability, consistency, and compliance with safety-critical automotive development requirements. Validation is performed on a centralized vehicle computing platform supporting adaptive cruise control and emergency braking, tested in Hardware-in-the-Loop (HiL) and Software-in-the-Loop (SiL) environments. We discuss current capabilities, practical limitations, and future directions toward increasingly automated, reliable, and quality-assured automotive software development with minimal human intervention.

Wed 21 OctSoftware EngineeringArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Designing software for modern cars is complicated and must be very safe. The authors show how artificial intelligence can help turn simple descriptions of what a car should do into actual software and tests automatically. They tested their AI-based system on car features like cruise control and emergency braking using realistic simulations. The paper explains what the AI can do now, what limits remain, and ideas for future automation in car software development.
Open → 2610.29160v1

Autonomous vehicles adapt to unknown road friction for smoother rides

Online Constraint Optimization-Based Indirect-Adaptive Robust Control for Autonomous Vehicles with Unknown Friction

Abstract: Friction uncertainty is a significant challenge for autonomous vehicle control, undermining feasibility and performance. This paper proposes a novel two-layer control framework to achieve vehicle motion control under large friction uncertainty by combining optimization-based planning with indirect adaptive robust control (IARC). The upper layer solves a constrained optimal control problem to generate a feasible trajectory that satisfies all the constraints in a time-optimal manner along the desired path. The lower layer, IARC, adapts the unknown parameters related to friction uncertainty and combines model compensation with robust feedback to ensure transient and steady-state tracking performance. An estimation monitor is designed to prevent poor learning when data indicate a model mismatch, while a smooth parameter reset reduces the estimated tire capacity and limits abrupt tightening of constraints. The updated parameters are fed back into the model and constraints in the planner, enabling trajectory replanning as friction conditions change. Simulation results indicate that the proposed method achieves accurate tracking of the desired trajectory and online friction adaptation under large friction uncertainty while ensuring time-optimal vehicle motion. The simulation results demos are available at https://github.com/TedZhou0603/CO-IARC.

Thu 15 OctRobotics
The gist
Controlling self-driving cars is tricky when road grip changes, like in rain or snow. The authors created a two-step system: one plans the best route quickly while respecting limits, and the other learns unknown road friction to keep the car on track. They use clever checks to avoid bad guesses and update plans as conditions change. Their tests show the car can follow its path accurately even when friction is uncertain.
Open → 2610.22675v1

Dual AI models improve testing for safer autonomous driving simulations

Teach-to-Crash: A Closed-Loop Student-Teacher LLM Framework for Collision-Inducing Test Scenario Generation

Abstract: Validating Autonomous Driving Systems (ADS) in simulation requires testing architectures that can discover rare, safety-critical failures while generating scenarios that are executable, diverse, and useful for downstream failure analysis. We introduce Teach-to-Crash, a closed-loop testing framework that combines a constrained ego-centric scenario representation, stagnation-aware search control, and a dual-LLM architecture for adaptive failure discovery. A high-reasoning Teacher LLM acts as an adaptive search controller, while a low-reasoning Student LLM emits simulator-executable scenarios in a strict JSON schema. The Teacher intervenes only when rolling collision rate and time-to-collision metrics stagnate, providing strategic guidance to redirect the search. In a CARLA case study with two experimental setups that vary the ego vehicle's speed policy, Teach-to-Crash achieves the highest Collision Hit Rate (90.79%), the shortest mean Time-to-Collision (18.31 s), and a competitive Collision Discovery Rate (136.21). PAFOT attains a higher mean CDR (179.44), but with substantially larger variance. Teach-to-Crash also yields the highest diversity (0.547) and, averaged across both setups on the CARLA Traffic Manager controller, the highest avoidability-based usefulness proxy (60.04%) among the compared methods. These results, within the evaluated CARLA scope, provide evidence that closed-loop dual-LLM reasoning can steer adversarial simulation-based testing over a constrained executable program space, generating failures that are frequent, structurally diverse, and assessed as more frequently avoidable.

Wed 23 SeptSoftware EngineeringArtificial IntelligenceMultiagent Systems
The gist
Testing self-driving cars in simulation is hard because dangerous crashes are rare but important to find. The authors created a system called Teach-to-Crash that uses two AI language models working together: one guides the search for crash scenarios, and the other creates detailed driving scenarios. This teamwork leads to more frequent, varied, and useful crash examples. Their tests showed it finds crashes faster and more reliably than other methods.
Open → 2609.27296v1

PlannerForge uses AI agents to improve self-driving car testing

PlannerForge: LLM Agents for Scenario-Based Testing of Motion Planners in Autonomous Driving

Abstract: Ensuring the safety of autonomous driving is a critical challenge. Scenario-based testing is a systematic process used to validate Autonomous Driving Systems (ADSs), but it remains a fragmented modular pipeline in which scenario generation, retrieval, modification, ADS execution, and results analysis are performed by separate tools with little interaction. Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise across ADS sub-systems such as perception, planning, and control. However, no prior work covers the whole scenario-based testing pipeline for ADSs with a unified LLM-agent framework. We present PlannerForge, an LLM-agent framework that extends all scenario-based testing stages (from Scenario Generation to ADS Assessment) and adds two further LLM-enhanced stages: ADS Enhancement and ADS Benchmarking. We evaluate PlannerForge with 10 off-the-shelf LLMs across all tasks (Generation, Selection, Modification, Module Routing, Planner Testing, and Enhancement) under 5 prompt conditions. Best-per-task scores range from 0.88 to 1.00, and open-source 20-35B backends match commercial APIs on most tasks. Open-source models such as Qwen3.6:35B match commercial APIs on three of the five tasks. Chaining the modules end-to-end retains 83% / 78% of seed queries (commercial / open). It outperforms Scenario Factory 2.0 (Finkeldei et al., 2025) on natural-language generation (193 vs. 144 executable of 200) and realises 92-96% of requested city, road and vehicle attributes. It outperforms BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) at rank 1 selection (92.0% vs. 67.5%) and From-Words-to-Collisions (Gao et al., 2025) on physically valid edits (>=94% vs. 31%). At N=400, cost-tuning lifts planner success from 50.4% to 70.2% and cuts collisions from 19.0% to 8.4%, without domain-specific fine-tuning.

Tue 8 SeptArtificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageRobotics
The gist
Testing self-driving cars safely is hard because many separate tools handle different parts of the job. The authors created PlannerForge, a system that uses AI language models to manage the whole process from making test scenarios to analyzing results. It can also improve the autonomous driving system itself and compare different systems. Their tests showed that PlannerForge works well using various AI models, sometimes better than existing tools, and helps make testing more efficient without extra training.
Open → 2609.08965v1