Prepared for the Worst: A Learning-Based Adversarial Attack for Resilience Analysis of the ICP Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a novel method for assessing the resilience of the ICP algorithm via learning-based, worst-case attacks on lidar point clouds. For safety-critical applications such as autonomous navigation, ensuring the resilience of algorithms before deployments is crucial. The ICP algorithm is the standard for lidar-based localization, but its accuracy can be greatly affected by corrupted measurements from various sources, including occlusions, adverse weather, or mechanical sensor issues. Unfortunately, the complex and iterative nature of ICP makes assessing its resilience to corruption challenging. While there have been efforts to create challenging datasets and develop simulations to evaluate the resilience of ICP, our method focuses on finding the maximum possible ICP error that can arise from corrupted measurements at a location. We demonstrate that our perturbation-based adversarial attacks can be used pre-deployment to identify locations on a map where ICP is particularly vulnerable to corruptions in the measurements. With such information, autonomous robots can take safer paths when deployed, to mitigate against their measurements being corrupted. The proposed attack outperforms baselines more than 88% of the time across a wide range of scenarios.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".