Reasoning-supported Robustness Validation of Automotive E/E Components

RISC-V is emerging as a viable platform for automotive-grade embedded computing, with recent ISO 26262 ASIL-D certifications demonstrating readiness for safety-critical deployment in autonomous driving systems. However, functional safety in automotive systems is fundamentally a certification problem rather than a processor problem. The dominant costs arise from diagnostic coverage analysis, toolchain qualification, fault injection campaigns, safety-case generation, and compliance with ISO 26262, ISO 21448 (SOTIF), and ISO/SAE 21434. This paper analyzes the role of RISC-V in automotive functional safety, focusing on ISA openness, formal verifiability, custom extension control, debug transparency, and vendor-independent qualification. We examine autonomous driving safety requirements and map them to RISC-V architectural challenges such as lockstep execution, safety islands, mixed-criticality isolation, and secure debug. Rather than proposing a single algorithmic breakthrough, we present an analytical framework and research roadmap centered on certification economics as the primary optimization objective. We also discuss how selected ML methods, including LLM-assisted FMEDA generation, knowledge-graph-based safety case automation, reinforcement learning for fault injection, and graph neural networks for diagnostic coverage, can support certification workflows. We argue that the strongest outcome is not a faster core, but an ASIL-D-ready certifiable RISC-V platform.

Validation of robotic systems critically depends on the operating conditions under which they are assessed. Scenario selection and variation are often manual, experience-driven, and difficult to scale, which harms reproducibility and weakens validation conclusions. We propose a scenario-based methodology that models scenarios compositionally and formalizes how these dimensions are varied, instantiated, executed, and interpreted. Building on this, we introduce RoboVAST, a framework that realizes declarative campaign specifications, plugin-based scenario generation, and scalable containerized execution with integrated result analysis. We demonstrate the approach with a navigation dataset comprising 5480 scenario configurations and over 100000 execution runs across five indoor maps with varied paths, sensor noise, software parameters, and obstacle settings, totaling more than 1800 hours of simulated operation and 1873 km traveled. Twenty repetitions per configuration allow us to distinguish systematic failures from stochastic anomalies.

For safety-critical software, data from the software's operational past (e.g. a sequence of success and failure events experienced by the software) can provide strong statistical support for reliability claims about the software. However, such data might not describe past software failure events in sufficient detail, and this might leave a reliability assessment (based on this data) unable to account for important features of past software failures. In this paper, by extending conservative Bayesian inference (CBI) techniques used in reliability assessment, we illustrate a principled statistical approach for checking the robustness of reliability claims derived from insufficiently detailed operational data. We demonstrate the extent to which insufficient detail in operational data can undermine software reliability claims in autonomous vehicle (AV) safety assessment scenarios. Reliability claims derived from insufficiently fine-grained data might be dangerously optimistic, despite a concerted effort by an assessor to use such data conservatively during the assessment. While these findings are consistent with previous work on the impact of statistical model fidelity in Bayesian software reliability assessments, our work clarifies why attempts to use low-fidelity data conservatively can be naive, and we give the first conservative estimates of the impact of data fidelity on assessments.