SLACK: Attacking LiDAR-Based SLAM with Adversarial Point Injections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread adoption of learning-based methods for the LiDAR makes autonomous vehicles vulnerable to adversarial attacks through adversarial point injections (PiJ). It poses serious security challenges for navigation and map generation. Despite its critical nature, no major work exists that studies learning-based attacks on LiDAR-based SLAM. Our work proposes SLACK, an end-to-end deep generative adversarial model to attack LiDAR scans with several point injections without deteriorating LiDAR quality. To facilitate SLACK, we design a novel yet simple autoencoder that augments contrastive learning with segmentation-based attention for precise reconstructions. SLACK demonstrates superior performance on the task of point injections (PiJ) compared to the best baselines on KITTI and CARLA-64 dataset while maintaining accurate scan quality. We qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrate PiJ attacks using a fraction of LiDAR points. It severely degrades navigation and map quality without deteriorating the LiDAR scan quality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it