Real-World Perturbation Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems
On the map: End-to-end autonomous driving → Adversarial scenarios and safety testing
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous Driving Systems (ADS) must operate reliably under diverse conditions, yet representative data for rare or adverse scenarios is difficult to obtain. Perturbation-based testing is widely used to assess robustness, but most studies focus on offline datasets or simulation, leaving open questions about how such results translate to real-world driving. We present a large-scale study of 72 camera and LiDAR perturbations, evaluated across three testing modalities: offline model-level analysis, hardware-in-the-loop execution, and closed-loop system-level testing on a full-scale autonomous vehicle. The study covers both an end-to-end vision-based driving model and a modular LiDAR-based perception and planning stack. Our results reveal a clear gap between testing levels. For camera-based systems, perturbations with limited offline impact can still induce unstable control and failures in real-world driving. For LiDAR-based systems, degradation is more consistent at the perception level but weakly predictive of system-level failures. Across both modalities, model-level metrics alone are insufficient to identify the most harmful perturbations. We further show that real-time feasibility is a key constraint in real-world testing, and that robustness observations obtained from recorded data do not consistently transfer to closed-loop behavior on a physical vehicle, highlighting the importance of complementary real-world, system-level evaluation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Adversarial scenarios and safety testing, one of 9 directions in End-to-end autonomous driving. Builds on 33 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
33 of 74 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 32
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
- 2019RandAugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search spacecited by 2,269
- 2016End to End Learning for Self-Driving Carscited by 1,009
- 2019AugMix: A Simple Data Processing Method to Improve Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 901
- 2019A Survey of Deep Learning Techniques for Autonomous Drivingcited by 403
- 2019A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologiescited by 379
- 2019Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Comingcited by 336
- 2017DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 311
- 2017DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Carscited by 251
- 2018Generalisation in humans and deep neural networkscited by 237
- 2019MNIST-C: A Robustness Benchmark for Computer Visioncited by 138
20 more
- 2016Understanding How Image Quality Affects Deep Neural Networkscited by 119
- 2023Benchmarking Robustness of 3D Object Detection to Common Corruptions in Autonomous Drivingcited by 114
- 2019Taxonomy of Real Faults in Deep Learning Systemscited by 90
- 2018DeepBillboard: Systematic Physical-World Testing of Autonomous Driving Systemscited by 50
- 2022A Survey on Automated Driving System Testing: Landscapes and Trendscited by 36
- 2019Comparing Offline and Online Testing of Deep Neural Networks: An Autonomous Car Case Studycited by 27
- 2021Can Offline Testing of Deep Neural Networks Replace Their Online Testing?cited by 24
- 2024Assessing Quality Metrics for Neural Reality Gap Input Mitigation in Autonomous Driving Testingcited by 15
- 2022Identifying and Explaining Safety-critical Scenarios for Autonomous Vehicles via Key Featurescited by 9
- 2019Achieving Generalizable Robustness of Deep Neural Networks by Stability Trainingcited by 7
- 2019Metamorphic Testing for Object Detection Systemscited by 6
- 2023EpiTESTER: Testing Autonomous Vehicles with Epigenetic Algorithm and Attention Mechanismcited by 6
- 2023Towards Reliable AI: Adequacy Metrics for Ensuring the Quality of System-level Testing of Autonomous Vehiclescited by 5
- 2019Bridging the Gap between Open Source Software and Vehicle Hardware for Autonomous Drivingcited by 4
- 2024Panoptic Perception for Autonomous Driving: A Surveycited by 4
- 2025Benchmarking Image Perturbations for Testing Automated Driving Assistance Systemscited by 4
- 2025On the Need for a Statistical Foundation in Scenario-Based Testing of Autonomous Vehiclescited by 4
- 2022Learning When to Use Adaptive Adversarial Image Perturbations against Autonomous Vehiclescited by 3
- 2024PAFOT: A Position-Based Approach for Finding Optimal Tests of Autonomous Vehiclescited by 3
- 2026PerturbationDrive: A Framework for Perturbation-Based Testing of ADAScited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025A Multi-Modality Evaluation of the Reality Gap in Autonomous Driving Systems
- 2026Bench2Drive-Robust: Benchmarking Closed-Loop Autonomous Driving under Deployment Perturbations
- 2025Advancing Autonomous Driving System Testing: Demands, Challenges, and Future Directions
- 2026Fail2Drive: Benchmarking Closed-Loop Driving Generalization
- 2022How Do We Fail? Stress Testing Perception in Autonomous Vehicles
- 2025Safety2Drive: Safety-Critical Scenario Benchmark for the Evaluation of Autonomous Driving
- 2025Towards Benchmarking and Assessing the Safety and Robustness of Autonomous Driving on Safety-critical Scenarios
- 2026Lost in Fog: Sensor Perturbations Expose Reasoning Fragility in Driving VLAs