Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis of fuzzing methods improves testing effectiveness in ROS-based robotic systems, highlighting weaknesses.
Fuzzing is increasingly used to test ROS-based robotic systems, yet results remain difficult to compare because studies exercise different ROS layers and define failures in different ways. We analyze 92 selected works on ROS/ROS-based fuzzing and closely related robotic, cyber-physical, and autonomous-system testing. The corpus was built through a documented search, screening, and snowballing process. Each work is interpreted by its role in the fuzzing workflow and by the strength of its ROS-specific evidence, which separates direct ROS results from near-domain evidence that can be transferred only under explicit assumptions. Thereview shows a shift from message-validity testing toward runtime behavior and task-level failures, but the evidence profile is uneven: input modeling, feedback, and oracle construction have advanced more clearly than repeatable execution and diagnosable failure analysis. Treating ROS fuzzing as an evidence-bound workflow clarifies which claims can be compared, where evidence remains weak, and what support is needed for reproducible and repairable ROS fuzzing results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: