Evaluating Adversarial Attacks on Driving Safety in Vision-Based Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, many deep learning models have been adopted in autonomous driving. At the same time, these models introduce new vulnerabilities that may compromise the safety of autonomous vehicles. Specifically, recent studies have demonstrated that adversarial attacks can cause a significant decline in detection precision of deep learning-based 3-D object detection models. Although driving safety is the ultimate concern for autonomous driving, there is no comprehensive study on the linkage between the performance of deep learning models and the driving safety of autonomous vehicles under adversarial attacks. In this article, we investigate the impact of two primary types of adversarial attacks, perturbation attacks, and patch attacks, on the driving safety of vision-based autonomous vehicles rather than the detection precision of deep learning models. In particular, we consider two state-of-the-art models in vision-based 3-D object detection: 1) Stereo R-CNN and 2) DSGN. To evaluate driving safety, we propose an end-to-end evaluation framework with a set of driving safety performance metrics. By analyzing the results of our extensive evaluation experiments, we find that: 1) the attack’s impact on the driving safety of autonomous vehicles and the attack’s impact on the precision of 3-D object detectors are decoupled and 2) the DSGN model demonstrates stronger robustness to adversarial attacks than the Stereo R-CNN model. In addition, we further investigate the causes behind the two findings with an ablation study. The findings of this article provide a new perspective to evaluate adversarial attacks and guide the selection of deep learning models in autonomous driving.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".