mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Real-World Perturbation Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems

arXiv 2607.04953 ↗First posted 6 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.ROcited by 0

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

  1. 2023DeepQTest: Testing Autonomous Driving Systems with Reinforcement Learning and Real-world Weather Data8 Oct

Other references · 32

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
  3. 2019RandAugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search spacecited by 2,269
  4. 2016End to End Learning for Self-Driving Carscited by 1,009
  5. 2019AugMix: A Simple Data Processing Method to Improve Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 901
  6. 2019A Survey of Deep Learning Techniques for Autonomous Drivingcited by 403
  7. 2019A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologiescited by 379
  8. 2019Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Comingcited by 336
  9. 2017DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 311
  10. 2017DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Carscited by 251
  11. 2018Generalisation in humans and deep neural networkscited by 237
  12. 2019MNIST-C: A Robustness Benchmark for Computer Visioncited by 138
20 more
  1. 2016Understanding How Image Quality Affects Deep Neural Networkscited by 119
  2. 2023Benchmarking Robustness of 3D Object Detection to Common Corruptions in Autonomous Drivingcited by 114
  3. 2019Taxonomy of Real Faults in Deep Learning Systemscited by 90
  4. 2018DeepBillboard: Systematic Physical-World Testing of Autonomous Driving Systemscited by 50
  5. 2022A Survey on Automated Driving System Testing: Landscapes and Trendscited by 36
  6. 2019Comparing Offline and Online Testing of Deep Neural Networks: An Autonomous Car Case Studycited by 27
  7. 2021Can Offline Testing of Deep Neural Networks Replace Their Online Testing?cited by 24
  8. 2024Assessing Quality Metrics for Neural Reality Gap Input Mitigation in Autonomous Driving Testingcited by 15
  9. 2022Identifying and Explaining Safety-critical Scenarios for Autonomous Vehicles via Key Featurescited by 9
  10. 2019Achieving Generalizable Robustness of Deep Neural Networks by Stability Trainingcited by 7
  11. 2019Metamorphic Testing for Object Detection Systemscited by 6
  12. 2023EpiTESTER: Testing Autonomous Vehicles with Epigenetic Algorithm and Attention Mechanismcited by 6
  13. 2023Towards Reliable AI: Adequacy Metrics for Ensuring the Quality of System-level Testing of Autonomous Vehiclescited by 5
  14. 2019Bridging the Gap between Open Source Software and Vehicle Hardware for Autonomous Drivingcited by 4
  15. 2024Panoptic Perception for Autonomous Driving: A Surveycited by 4
  16. 2025Benchmarking Image Perturbations for Testing Automated Driving Assistance Systemscited by 4
  17. 2025On the Need for a Statistical Foundation in Scenario-Based Testing of Autonomous Vehiclescited by 4
  18. 2022Learning When to Use Adaptive Adversarial Image Perturbations against Autonomous Vehiclescited by 3
  19. 2024PAFOT: A Position-Based Approach for Finding Optimal Tests of Autonomous Vehiclescited by 3
  20. 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

  1. 2025A Multi-Modality Evaluation of the Reality Gap in Autonomous Driving Systems
  2. 2026Bench2Drive-Robust: Benchmarking Closed-Loop Autonomous Driving under Deployment Perturbations
  3. 2025Advancing Autonomous Driving System Testing: Demands, Challenges, and Future Directions
  4. 2026Fail2Drive: Benchmarking Closed-Loop Driving Generalization
  5. 2022How Do We Fail? Stress Testing Perception in Autonomous Vehicles
  6. 2025Safety2Drive: Safety-Critical Scenario Benchmark for the Evaluation of Autonomous Driving
  7. 2025Towards Benchmarking and Assessing the Safety and Robustness of Autonomous Driving on Safety-critical Scenarios
  8. 2026Lost in Fog: Sensor Perturbations Expose Reasoning Fragility in Driving VLAs