mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

TESTNAV: Pareto-Guided Search for Compositional Robustness Testing

arXiv 2608.19882 ↗First posted 20 Aug 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep learning models remain vulnerable to real-world input perturbations, especially when multiple corruptions co-occur in the same input (e.g., brightness shifts and motion blur). Compositional testing reveals these interaction effects but introduces two challenges: combinatorial growth of the perturbation space as dimensions and severity levels increase, and uneven diagnostic value-many combinations yield unrealistically degraded inputs with limited practical relevance. We present TESTNAV, 1 a Pareto-guided robustness testing framework for efficiently exploring discrete, compositional perturbation spaces when only a limited number of perturbation configurations can be evaluated. TESTNAV prioritises severe yet realistic failures by formulating robustness testing as bi-objective optimisation: maximise performance degradation while preserving input fidelity measured by modality-specific metrics (e.g., SSIM and KID for vision; chrF and BERT-F1 for language and code). It uses NSGA-II to approximate the bi-objective Pareto front. Across four benchmarks spanning vision, natural language, and code generation, TESTNAV recovers Pareto fronts up to 2.15x faster than search-based baselines, using 35.8%-89.3% of the discrete perturbation space defined by four perturbation dimensions with six levels each.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2026.

Builds on

22 of 35 references.

References · 22

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  3. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,155
  4. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
  5. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  6. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
  7. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
  8. 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
  9. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 1,006
  10. 2019AugMix: A Simple Data Processing Method to Improve Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 901
  11. 2022CodeGen: An Open Large Language Model for Code with Multi-Turn Program Synthesiscited by 885
  12. 2021Going deeper with Image Transformerscited by 764
10 more
  1. 2017DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 311
  2. 2020pymoo: Multi-objective Optimization in Pythoncited by 200
  3. 2018DeepGauge: Multi-Granularity Testing Criteria for Deep Learning Systemscited by 147
  4. 2019MNIST-C: A Robustness Benchmark for Computer Visioncited by 138
  5. 2018Guiding Deep Learning System Testing using Surprise Adequacycited by 124
  6. 2022ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Modelscited by 103
  7. 2021On Interaction Between Augmentations and Corruptions in Natural Corruption Robustnesscited by 97
  8. 2018DLFuzz: Differential Fuzzing Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 65
  9. 2024Is Your HD Map Constructor Reliable under Sensor Corruptions?cited by 28
  10. 2026TestifAI: Tomography-Based Testing for Deep Learning Systemscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.