On the Robustness Evaluation of 3D Obstacle Detection Against Specifications in Autonomous Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous driving systems (ADSs) rely on real-time sensor data, such as cameras and LiDARs, for time-critical decisions using deep neural networks. The accuracy of these decisions is crucial for the widespread adoption of ADSs, as errors can have serious consequences. 3D obstacle detection, in particular, is sensitive to point cloud data (PCD) noise from various sources. However, the robustness of current 3D obstacle detection models against specification-based perturbations remains unevaluated. These perturbations are derived from the specification of LiDAR sensors and previous research on LiDAR’s ability to capture objects of different colors and materials. They can manifest as very subtle sensor-based noises or obstacle-specific perturbations. Hence, we propose SORBET, a framework that tests the robustness of 3D obstacle detection models in ADS against such perturbations to the PCD to evaluate their robustness. We applied SORBET to evaluate the robustness of five classic 3D obstacle detection models, including one from an industry-grade Level 4 ADS (Baidu’s Apollo). Furthermore, we studied how the deviated obstacle detection results would propagate and negatively impact trajectory prediction. Our evaluation emphasizes the importance of testing 3D obstacle detection against specification-based perturbations. We find that even very subtle changes in the PCD (i.e., removing two points) may introduce a non-trivial decrease in the detection performance. Furthermore, such a negative impact will further propagate to other modules and endanger the safety of the ADS.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".