Before Autonomy Takes Control: Software Testing in Robotics

Robotic systems are complex and safety-critical software systems. As such, they need to be tested thoroughly. Unfortunately, robot software is intrinsically hard to test compared to traditional software, mainly since the software needs to closely interact with hardware, account for uncertainty in its operational environment, handle disturbances, and act highly autonomously. However, given the large space in which robots operate, anticipating possible failures when designing tests is challenging. This paper presents a mapping study by considering robotics testing papers and relating them to the software testing theory. We consider 247 robotics testing papers and map them to software testing, discussing the state-of-the-art software testing in robotics with an illustrated example, and discuss current challenges. Forming the basis to introduce both the robotics and software engineering communities to software testing challenges. Finally, we identify open questions and lessons learned.

A Large-Scale Study of Model Integration in ML-Enabled Software Systems

The rise of machine learning (ML) and its embedding in systems has drastically changed the engineering of software-intensive systems. Traditionally, software engineering focuses on manually created artifacts such as source code and the process of creating them, as well as best practices for integrating them, i.e., software architectures. In contrast, the development of ML artifacts, i.e. ML models, comes from data science and focuses on the ML models and their training data. However, to deliver value to end users, these ML models must be embedded in traditional software, often forming complex topologies. In fact, ML-enabled software can easily incorporate many different ML models. While the challenges and practices of building ML-enabled systems have been studied to some extent, beyond isolated examples, little is known about the characteristics of real-world ML-enabled systems. Properly embedding ML models in systems so that they can be easily maintained or reused is far from trivial. We need to improve our empirical understanding of such systems, which we address by presenting the first large-scale study of real ML-enabled software systems, covering over 2,928 open source systems on GitHub. We classified and analyzed them to determine their characteristics, as well as their practices for reusing ML models and related code, and the architecture of these systems. Our findings provide practitioners and researchers with insight into practices for embedding and integrating ML models, bringing data science and software engineering closer together.

Software Reconfiguration in Robotics

Since it has often been claimed by academics that reconfiguration is essential, many approaches to reconfiguration, especially of robotic systems, have been developed. Accordingly, the literature on robotics is rich in techniques for reconfiguring robotic systems. However, when talking to researchers in the domain, there seems to be no common understanding of what exactly reconfiguration is and how it relates to other concepts such as adaptation. Beyond this academic perspective, robotics frameworks provide mechanisms for dynamically loading and unloading parts of robotics applications. While we have a fuzzy picture of the state-of-the-art in robotic reconfiguration from an academic perspective, we lack a picture of the state-of-practice from a practitioner perspective. To fill this gap, we survey the literature on reconfiguration in robotic systems by identifying and analyzing 98 relevant papers, review how four major robotics frameworks support reconfiguration, and finally investigate the realization of reconfiguration in 48 robotics applications. When comparing the state-of-the-art with the state-of-practice, we observed a significant discrepancy between them, in particular, the scientific community focuses on complex structural reconfiguration, while in practice only parameter reconfiguration is widely used. Based on our observations, we discuss possible reasons for this discrepancy and conclude with a takeaway message for academics and practitioners interested in robotics.