Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2412.21016

Assessing the Robustness of LLM-based NLP Software via Automated Testing

Abstract

Benefiting from the advancements in LLMs, NLP software has undergone rapid development. Such software is widely employed in various safety-critical tasks, such as financial sentiment analysis, toxic content moderation, and log generation. Unlike traditional software, LLM-based NLP software relies on prompts and examples as inputs. Given the complexity of LLMs and the unpredictability of real-world inputs, quantitatively assessing the robustness of such software is crucial. However, to the best of our knowledge, no automated robustness testing methods have been specifically designed to evaluate the overall inputs of LLM-based NLP software. To this end, this paper introduces the first AutOmated Robustness Testing frAmework, AORTA, which reconceptualizes the testing process into a combinatorial optimization problem. Existing testing methods designed for DNN-based software can be applied to LLM-based software by AORTA, but their effectiveness is limited. To address this, we propose a novel testing method for LLM-based software within AORTA called Adaptive Beam Search. ABS is tailored for the expansive feature space of LLMs and improves testing effectiveness through an adaptive beam width and the capability for backtracking. We successfully embed 18 test methods in the designed framework AORTA and compared the test validity of ABS with three datasets and five threat models. ABS facilitates a more comprehensive and accurate robustness assessment before software deployment, with an average test success rate of 86.138%. Compared to the currently best-performing baseline PWWS, ABS significantly reduces the computational overhead by up to 3441.895 seconds per successful test case and decreases the number of queries by 218.762 times on average. Furthermore, test cases generated by ABS exhibit greater naturalness and transferability.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mingxuan Xiao, Yan Xiao, Shunhui Ji, Hanbo Cai, Lei Xue, Pengcheng Zhang. 2025-03-17. Assessing the Robustness of LLM-based NLP Software via Automated Testing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.21016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

LLM-Based Repair of Static Nullability Errors

Modern Java projects increasingly adopt static analysis tools that prevent null-pointer exceptions by treating nullness as a type property. However, integrating such tools into large, existing codebases remains a significant challenge. While annotation inference can eliminate many errors automatically, a subset of residual errors $-$ typically a mix of real bugs and false positives $-$ often persists and can only be resolved via code changes. Manually addressing these errors is tedious and error-prone. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path toward automating these repairs, but naively prompted LLMs often generate incorrect, contextually inappropriate edits. We present NullRepair, a system that integrates LLMs into a structured workflow for resolving the errors from a nullability checker. NullRepair's decision process follows a flowchart derived from manual analysis of 200 real-world errors. It leverages static analysis to identify safe and unsafe usage regions of symbols, using error-free usage examples to contextualize model prompts. Patches are generated through an iterative interaction with the LLM that incorporates project-wide context and decision logic. Our evaluation on 12 real-world Java projects shows that NullRepair resolves 63% of the 1,119 nullability errors that remain after applying a state-of-the-art annotation inference technique. Unlike two baselines (single-shot prompt and mini-SWE-agent), NullRepair also largely preserves program semantics, with all unit tests passing in 10/12 projects after applying every edit proposed by NullRepair, and 98% or more tests passing in the remaining two projects.

cs.SE

Metamodel-Guided Model Generation with Layered Constraints

Large language models (LLMs) enable natural-language interaction in engineering modeling, but generated models may violate structural constraints, domain rules, or task requirements. We propose a metamodel-guided model generation method that coordinates generation-time constraints and post-generation validation. The method transforms metamodel information, uses its terminology to guide structured constraint extraction from specifications, and links constraints to metamodel elements while recording their sources in an Integrated Constraint Model (ICM). For each task, relevant constraints are bound to concrete objects, values, and references. The generation-time constraint layer (L1) restricts candidate content. The post-generation validation layer (L2) checks constructed models and serialized artifacts, and task acceptance checks retain the original requirements throughout repair. Deterministic procedures construct and serialize models, while LLMs propose candidate content and repairs. Validation uses existing domain tools and checkers written by humans with LLM assistance. Experiments cover AUTOSAR, railway models, and structured decisions in private international law. All 60 AUTOSAR generation runs passed acceptance within the declared task scope, and all 255 resulting ARXML files passed XSD validation. In a separate controlled AUTOSAR repair experiment, all 85 core fault units and 15 prespecified substitute units were restored within one repair round. A local AUTOSAR experiment recorded interventions during stepwise generation. The results support coordinating generation constraints, domain checks, and task acceptance to construct models and guide bounded repair.

cs.SE

VeriSoftBench: Repository-Scale Formal Verification Benchmarks for Lean

Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-based proof automation are drawn from mathematics in the Mathlib ecosystem, whereas proofs in software verification are developed inside definition-rich codebases with substantial project-specific libraries. We introduce VeriSoftBench, a benchmark of 500 Lean 4 proof obligations drawn from open-source formal-methods developments and packaged to preserve realistic repository context and cross-file dependencies. Our evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized provers yields three observations. First, provers tuned for Mathlib-style mathematics transfer poorly to this repository-centric setting. Second, success is strongly correlated with transitive repository dependence: tasks whose proofs draw on large, multi-hop dependency closures are less likely to be solved. Third, providing curated context restricted to a proof's dependency closure improves performance relative to exposing the full repository, but nevertheless leaves substantial room for improvement. Our benchmark and evaluation suite are released at https://github.com/utopia-group/VeriSoftBench.

cs.SE