Policy Testing with MDPFuzz (Replicability Study)
Quentin Mazouni, Helge Spieker, Arnaud Gotlieb, Mathieu Acher
Abstract
In recent years, following tremendous achievements in Reinforcement Learning, a great deal of interest has been devoted to ML models for sequential decision-making. Together with these scientific breakthroughs/advances, research has been conducted to develop automated functional testing methods for finding faults in black-box Markov decision processes. Pang et al. (ISSTA 2022) presented a black-box fuzz testing framework called MDPFuzz. The method consists of a fuzzer whose main feature is to use Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) to compute coverage of the test inputs as the likelihood to have already observed their results. This guidance through coverage evaluation aims at favoring novelty during testing and fault discovery in the decision model. Pang et al. evaluated their work with four use cases, by comparing the number of failures found after twelve-hour testing campaigns with or without the guidance of the GMMs (ablation study). In this paper, we verify some of the key findings of the original paper and explore the limits of MDPFuzz through reproduction and replication. We re-implemented the proposed methodology and evaluated our replication in a large-scale study that extends the original four use cases with three new ones. Furthermore, we compare MDPFuzz and its ablated counterpart with a random testing baseline. We also assess the effectiveness of coverage guidance for different parameters, something that has not been done in the original evaluation. Despite this parameter analysis and unlike Pang et al. 's original conclusions, we find that in most cases, the aforementioned ablated Fuzzer outperforms MDPFuzz, and conclude that the coverage model proposed does not lead to finding more faults. CCS Concepts • Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging; • Computing methodologies → Reinforcement learning.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 76296049-7238-4bfd-95d2-5351928fcc91Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on6
- Learning Generalized Relational Heuristic Networks for Model-Agnostic PlanningRushang Karia, Siddharth SrivastavaAAAI 2021 · 49 citations
- MDPFuzz: testing models solving Markov decision processesQi Pang, Yuanyuan Yuan, Shuai WangISSTA 2022 · 37 citations
- Many-Objective Reinforcement Learning for Online Testing of DNN-Enabled SystemsFitash Ul Haq, Donghwan Shin, Lionel C. BriandICSE 2023 · 35 citations
- Generative Model-Based Testing on Decision-Making PoliciesZhuo Li, Xiongfei Wu, Derui Zhu, Mingfei Cheng et al.ASE 2023 · 14 citations
- Metamorphic relations via relaxations: an approach to obtain oracles for action-policy testingHasan Ferit Eniser, Timo P. Gros, Valentin Wüstholz, Jörg Hoffmann et al.ISSTA 2022 · 14 citations
Related papers
- MG-Fuzz: Model-Guided Fuzzing for Unsafe Scenario Discovery in Autonomous Driving SystemsYulong Lyu, Ruiqi Hong, Jiawan Wang, Jun Sun et al.ISSTA 2026
- MoFuzz: A Fuzzer Suite for Testing Model-Driven Software Engineering ToolsHoang Lam Nguyen, Nebras Nassar, Timo Kehrer, Lars GrunskeASE 2020 · 12 citations
- Curiosity-Driven Testing for Sequential Decision-Making ProcessJunda He, Zhou Yang, Jieke Shi, Chengran Yang et al.ICSE 2024 · 6 citations
- Reinforcement Learning-based Hierarchical Seed Scheduling for Greybox FuzzingJinghan Wang, Chengyu Song, Heng YinNDSS 2021
- On Interaction Effects in Greybox FuzzingKonstantinos Kitsios, Marcel Böhme, Alberto BacchelliICSE 2026
