Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

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.

End-to-end autonomous driving models often encounter performance bottlenecks, as training-time scaling leads to high computational costs and diminishing marginal returns. Existing planners typically adopt a one-shot generation paradigm, lacking secondary validation and active correction mechanisms to detect and revise suboptimal or unsafe trajectories during inference. To address this issue, we propose DriveVer, a lightweight, plug-and-play Test-Time Verifier that leverages the test-time scaling paradigm to enable autonomous driving systems to validate and refine trajectories without costly and heavy training. We construct a dedicated trajectory dataset based on the NAVSIM benchmark through condition-driven clustering and balanced sampling according to ego-vehicle states and navigation commands. Employing a dual-head architecture, DriveVer efficiently fuses candidate trajectories with multi-view visual representations and ego-vehicle kinematic features to simultaneously predict a safety confidence score and an absolute geometric refinement vector. Extensive experiments on the NAVSIM benchmark show that DriveVer significantly improves the performance of base planning models. Notably, as an extremely compact model with only 34M parameters, DriveVer introduces minimal computational overhead, achieving competitive results while maintaining real-time inference efficiency.

As AI systems generate an ever-growing share of the world's code, formal verification offers a principled way to ensure that code is correct, and AI itself may be able to shoulder much of the verification burden. Yet we lack a clear picture of how well today's models and agents perform on verification tasks drawn from real-world software, since existing benchmarks rely largely on curated or synthetic problems, or focus on math rather than program verification. To close this gap, we present a benchmark for evaluating AI on real-world formal software verification tasks. We first scrape 7,413 distinct property-based tests (PBTs) from real-world Python repositories, then automatically translate 2,623 of them (35%) into 9,415 Lean 4 specifications with sorry placeholders (3.5 formalizations/PBT). Translating PBTs to Lean specs is challenging: it requires modeling Python in Lean, inferring the property encoded in a PBT, and handling side effects. We describe an agentic pipeline for transpiling PBTs into Lean, evaluate coverage and quality metrics, and provide baselines for proof generation using several approaches. All code (scraper and agents) and data (PBTs and Lean specs) are open source.