Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.21427

Dynasto: Validity-Aware Dynamic-Static Parameter Optimization for Autonomous Driving Testing

Abstract

Extensive simulation-based testing is important for assuring the safety of autonomous driving systems (ADS). However, generating safety-critical traffic scenarios remains challenging because failures often arise from rare, complex interactions with surrounding vehicles. Existing automatic scenario-generation approaches frequently fail to distinguish genuine ADS faults from collisions caused by implausible or invalid adversarial behaviors, and they typically optimize either scenario initialization or agent behavior in isolation. We propose Dynasto, a two-step testing approach that jointly optimizes initial scenario parameters and dynamic adversarial behaviors to uncover realistic safety-critical failures. First, we train an adversarial agent using reinforcement learning (RL) with temporal-logic-based validity criteria and a safe-distance model inspired by ISO 34502 to promote behaviorally plausible failures. Second, a genetic algorithm (GA) searches over initial conditions while replaying the adversary's failure-inducing behaviors to reveal additional failures that the RL agent alone does not uncover. Finally, a graph-based clustering pipeline groups failures into representative modes based on semantic event sequences. Our evaluation experiments in HighwayEnv across two ADS controllers show that Dynasto finds 60%-70% more valid failures than an RL-only adversary under the same evaluation budget. With clustering, we obtain about 12 interpretable failure modes per system under test, revealing valid failures driven by weaknesses in ego-controller behavior. These results indicate that coordinated dynamic-static optimization with explicit validity constraints is effective for exposing safety-relevant failures in ADS testing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dmytro Humeniuk, Mohammad Hamdaqa, Houssem Ben Braiek, Amel Bennaceur, Foutse Khomh. 2026-03-22. Dynasto: Validity-Aware Dynamic-Static Parameter Optimization for Autonomous Driving Testing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21427

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE