Prepared for the Worst: Resilience Analysis of the ICP Algorithm via Learning-Based Worst-Case Adversarial Attacks
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
This paper presents a novel method for assessing the resilience of the iterative closest point (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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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