Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2004.07368

A Study on the Challenges of Using Robotics Simulators for Testing

Afsoon Afzal·Deborah S. Katz·Claire Le Goues·Christopher S. Timperley
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Robotics simulation plays an important role in the design, development, and verification and validation of robotic systems. Recent studies have shown that simulation may be used as a cheaper, safer, and more reliable alternative to manual, and widely used, process of field testing. This is particularly important in the context of continuous integration pipelines, where integrated automated testing is key to reducing costs while maintaining system safety. However, simulation and automated testing are not seeing the degree of widespread adoption in practice that their potential would motivate. Our goal in this paper is to develop a principled understanding of the ways developers use simulation in their process, and the challenges they face in doing so. This type of understanding can guide the development of more effective simulators and testing techniques for modern robotics development. To that end, we conduct a survey of 82 robotics developers from a diversity of backgrounds that addresses the current capabilities and limits of simulation technology in practice. We find that simulation is used by 85% of our participants for testing, and that many participants desire to use simulation as part of their test automation. We identify 10 high-level challenges that impede developers from using simulation for manual and automated testing, and general purposes. These challenges include the gap between simulation and reality, a lack of reproducibility, and considerable resource costs associated with using simulators. Finally, we outline avenues for improvement in the development of new simulators that can help simulation reach its potential as a means of verification and validation.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Afsoon Afzal, Deborah S. Katz, Claire Le Goues, Christopher S. Timperley. 2020-04-15. A Study on the Challenges of Using Robotics Simulators for Testing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07368

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗