journal article·2024-10-08Open access

Enhancing Clustering Performance of Failed Test Cases during HIL Simulation: A Study on Deep Auto-Encoder Structures and Hyperparameter Tuning

Mohammad Abboush, Christoph Knieke, Andreas Rausch

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 19

Abstract

Over the last decade, hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation has been established as a safe, efficient, reliable, and flexible method for performing real-time simulation. Furthermore, in the automotive sector, the HIL system has been recommended in the ISO 26262 standard as a powerful platform for performing realistic simulation during system integration testing. As a result of performing HIL black-box tests, the results of executing test cases (TCs) are reported as pass/fail without determining the nature and root causes of the underlying failures. The conventional analysis process of the failed TCs relies on expert knowledge. The higher the number of failed TCs, the higher the cost of manual analysis in terms of time and effort. In light of the shortcomings of existing methodologies, this study presents a novel intelligent framework capable of analyzing failed TCs without the need for expert knowledge or code access. To this end, a convolutional auto-encoder-based deep-learning approach is proposed to extract representative features from the textual description of the failed TCs. Furthermore, k-means-based clustering is used to categorize the extracted features according to their respective failure classes. To illustrate the effectiveness and validate the performance of the proposed method, a virtual test drive with real-time HIL simulation is presented as a case study. The proposed model exhibits superior clustering performance compared to other standalone k-means algorithms, as demonstrated by the David Bouldin Index (DBI) and accuracy values of 0.5184 and 94.33%, respectively. Furthermore, the proposed model shows a significant advantage in terms of feature extraction and clustering performance compared to the current state-of-the-art fault-analysis method. The proposed approach not only supports the validation process and improves the safety and reliability of the systems but also reduces the costs of manual analysis in terms of time and effort.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Software Testing and Debugging Techniques · Software Engineering Research · Software Reliability and Analysis Research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Institute for Software and Systems Engineering, Technische Universität Clausthal, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany

Funding

Open-Access Publishing Fund of Clausthal University of Technology

References (49)

Show source-provided references
1. Abelein, U., Lochner, H., Hahn, D., and Straube, S. (2012, January 12–16). Complexity, quality and robustness-the challenges of tomorrow’s automotive electronics. Proceedings of the 2012 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), Dresden, Germany.10.1109/DATE.2012.6176573 ↗
2. Automotive software10.1109/MS.2017.82 ↗
3. Recent advances and trends in on-board embedded and networked automotive systems10.1109/TII.2018.2879544 ↗
4. (2012). Road Vehicles—Functional Safety—Part 10: Guideline on ISO 26262 (Standard No. ISO 26262-10:2012). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/54591.html.
5. Pintard, L., Fabre, J.C., Leeman, M., Kanoun, K., and Roy, M. (2014, January 18–21). From safety analyses to experimental validation of automotive embedded systems. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 20th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing, Singapore.10.1109/PRDC.2014.23 ↗
6. Testing embedded software: A survey of the literature10.1016/j.infsof.2018.06.016 ↗
7. Lamberg, K. (2006, January 6–10). Model-based testing of automotive electronics. Proceedings of the Design Automation & Test in Europe Conference, Munich, Germany.10.1109/DATE.2006.243990 ↗
8. Himmler, A., Lamberg, K., and Beine, M. (2012). Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing in the Context of ISO 26262, SAE International. SAE Technical Paper.10.4271/2012-01-0035 ↗
9. State of the art: Hardware in the loop modeling and simulation with its applications in design, development and implementation of system and control software10.1007/s40435-014-0108-3 ↗
10. Bringmann, E., and Krämer, A. (2008, January 9–11). Model-based testing of automotive systems. Proceedings of the 2008 1st International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation, Lillehammer, Norway.10.1109/ICST.2008.45 ↗
11. Functional debug techniques for embedded systems10.1109/MDT.2008.66 ↗
12. Li, W. (2013). Automatic Log Analysis Using Machine Learning: Awesome Automatic Log Analysis Version 2.0, DiVA.
13. The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing
14. Machine learning algorithms-a review
15. A literature review of using machine learning in software development life cycle stages10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3119746 ↗
16. Shafiq, S., Mashkoor, A., Mayr-Dorn, C., and Egyed, A. (2020). Machine learning for software engineering: A systematic mapping. arXiv.
17. Predictive maintenance enabled by machine learning: Use cases and challenges in the automotive industry10.1016/j.ress.2021.107864 ↗
18. Jones, J.A., Bowring, J.F., and Harrold, M.J. (2007, January 9–12). Debugging in parallel. Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, London, UK.10.1145/1273463.1273468 ↗
19. Parallel debugging: An investigative study10.1002/smr.2178 ↗
20. Hsueh, C.H., Cheng, Y.P., and Pan, W.C. (2011, January 5–8). Intrusive test automation with failed test case clustering. Proceedings of the 2011 18th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.10.1109/APSEC.2011.31 ↗
21. Separating passing and failing test executions by clustering anomalies10.1007/s11219-016-9339-1 ↗
22. Empirical study of root cause analysis of software failure10.1145/2492248.2492263 ↗
23. Zhang, S., Zhang, C., and Ernst, M.D. (2011, January 6–10). Automated documentation inference to explain failed tests. Proceedings of the 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011), Lawrence, KS, USA.10.1109/ASE.2011.6100145 ↗
24. Nguyen, X.V., Nguyen, P.K., and Nguyen, V. (2019, January 24–26). Clustering automation test faults. Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), Da Nang, Vietnam.10.1109/KSE.2019.8919435 ↗
25. Kahles, J., Törrönen, J., Huuhtanen, T., and Jung, A. (2019, January 22–27). Automating root cause analysis via machine learning in agile software testing environments. Proceedings of the 2019 12th IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification (ICST), Xi’an, China.10.1109/ICST.2019.00047 ↗
26. Gelbal, Ş.Y., Tamilarasan, S., Cantaş, M.R., Güvenç, L., and Aksun-Güvenç, B. (2017, January 5–8). A connected and autonomous vehicle hardware-in-the-loop simulator for developing automated driving algorithms. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Banff, AB, Canada.10.1109/SMC.2017.8123155 ↗
27. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation of robust mode transition control for a series—Parallel hybrid electric vehicle10.1109/TVT.2015.2486558 ↗
28. HIL testing of wheel slide protection systems: Criteria for continuous updating and validation10.1007/s40534-022-00298-7 ↗
29. Intelligent Identification of Simultaneous Faults of Automotive Software Systems under Noisy and Imbalanced Data based on Ensemble LSTM and Random Forest10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3340865 ↗
30. Golagha, M., Lehnhoff, C., Pretschner, A., and Ilmberger, H. (2019, January 15–19). Failure clustering without coverage. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Beijing, China.10.1145/3293882.3330561 ↗
31. Choi, K.Y., and Lee, J.W. (2018). Fault Localization by Comparing Memory Updates between Unit and Integration Testing of Automotive Software in an Hardware-in-the-Loop Environment. Appl. Sci., 8.10.3390/app8112260 ↗
32. Abboush, M., Knieke, C., and Rausch, A. (2023). GRU-based denoising autoencoder for detection and clustering of unknown single and concurrent faults during system integration testing of automotive software systems. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23146606 ↗
33. Jordan, C.V., Hauer, F., Foth, P., and Pretschner, A. (2020, January 12–15). Time-series-based clustering for failure analysis in hardware-in-the-loop setups: An automotive case study. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), Coimbra, Portugal.10.1109/ISSREW51248.2020.00039 ↗
34. Scharoba, S., Basener, K.U., Bielefeldt, J., Wiesbrock, H.W., and Hübner, M. (2021, January 1–3). Towards machine learning support for embedded system tests. Proceedings of the 2021 24th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD), Palermo, Spain.10.1109/DSD53832.2021.00034 ↗
35. (2024, May 01). Simulink. MathWorks. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink.html.
36. Pradana, A.W., and Hayaty, M. (2019). The effect of stemming and removal of stopwords on the accuracy of sentiment analysis on indonesian-language texts. Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control, Kinetik.10.22219/kinetik.v4i4.912 ↗
37. Bank, D., Koenigstein, N., and Giryes, R. (2023). Autoencoders. Machine Learning for Data Science Handbook: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-24628-9_16 ↗
38. A comprehensive survey on design and application of autoencoder in deep learning10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110176 ↗
39. Auto-encoder based dimensionality reduction10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.104 ↗
40. The global k-means clustering algorithm10.1016/S0031-3203(02)00060-2 ↗
41. Ahmed, M., Seraj, R., and Islam, S.M.S. (2020). The k-means algorithm: A comprehensive survey and performance evaluation. Electronics, 9.10.3390/electronics9081295 ↗
42. Abboush, M., Bamal, D., Knieke, C., and Rausch, A. (2022). Hardware-in-the-loop-based real-time fault injection framework for dynamic behavior analysis of automotive software systems. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22041360 ↗
43. (2023, April 11). Automotive Simulation Models—dSPACE, Version:10.0 (2021-B), Paderborn, Germany. Available online: https://www.dspace.com/en/pub/home/products/sw/automotive_simulation_models.cfm#176_26302_2.
44. Abboush, M., Knieke, C., and Rausch, A. (2024). A Virtual Testing Framework for Real-Time Validation of Automotive Software Systems Based on Hardware in the Loop and Fault Injection. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24123733 ↗
45. (2023, March 20). Software Development Tools—dSPACE, Release: 2021-B, Paderborn, Germany. Available online: https://www.dspace.com/en/pub/home/products/products.cfm.
46. (2024, July 11). Factory Reports. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/help/textanalytics/ug/create-simple-text-model-for-classification.html.
47. (2024, July 11). Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement Reports. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/art12400/2019-autonomous-vehicle-disengagement-reports?resource=download.
48. Study of Tokenization Strategies for the Santhali Language10.1007/s42979-024-03083-x ↗
49. Porter, M.F. (2024, July 01). Snowball: A Language for Stemming Algorithms. Available online: http://snowball.tartarus.org/texts/introduction.html.