Explainability-Aware Frustum Attack: Exposing Structural Vulnerabilities in LiDAR-Based 3D Object Detectors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The structural vulnerabilities of point cloud-based 3D object detectors remain poorly understood. Prior work has studied adversarial robustness primarily on isolated 3D object models, while recent LiDAR spoofing attacks target richer and more realistic driving scenes but focus mainly on physical realizability rather than understanding detector behavior or attack efficiency. In this work, we investigate how LiDAR-based detectors rely on spatial evidence in complex scenes and whether these reliance patterns can be exploited to induce failures more efficiently. To this end, we propose an explainability-guided adversarial analysis methodology. We introduce the Saliency-LiDAR (SALL) method, which aggregates Integrated Gradient attributions across scenes to produce universal saliency maps for LiDAR-based 3D object detectors. Guided by these maps, we design the Explainability-aware Frustum Attack (EFA), which selectively perturbs only the most influential frustums rather than uniformly attacking entire object regions. Experiments on KITTI and nuScenes, across detectors such as PointPillars and SECOND, show that EFA reduces detection recall by more than 15 percentage points while requiring 25-50% fewer perturbed frustums than the state-of-the-art non-saliency-aware baseline. These findings reveal that modern 3D detectors concentrate discriminative evidence in a small subset of spatial regions, exposing a structural robustness vulnerability in current LiDAR perception systems. Our code is released at https://github.com/SecMindLab/Saliency_LiDAR.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.
Builds on
21 of 30 references.
References · 21
- 2016PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentationcited by 5,248
- 2019nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous drivingcited by 4,523
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2018PointPillars: Fast Encoders for Object Detection from Point Cloudscited by 1,715
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
- 2019Adversarial Sensor Attack on LiDAR-based Perception in Autonomous Drivingcited by 152
- 2020Physically Realizable Adversarial Examples for LiDAR Object Detectioncited by 137
- 2018PointCloud Saliency Mapscited by 112
- 2020Towards Robust LiDAR-based Perception in Autonomous Driving: General Black-box Adversarial Sensor Attack and Countermeasurescited by 95
- 2019Adversarial Attack and Defense on Point Setscited by 63
- 2020Minimal Adversarial Examples for Deep Learning on 3D Point Cloudscited by 41
- 2022You Can't See Me: Physical Removal Attacks on LiDAR-based Autonomous Vehicles Driving Frameworkscited by 32
9 more
- 2016Gradients of Counterfactualscited by 31
- 2021Security Analysis of Camera-LiDAR Fusion Against Black-Box Attacks on Autonomous Vehiclescited by 26
- 2021Object Removal Attacks on LiDAR-based 3D Object Detectorscited by 16
- 2023LiDAR Spoofing Meets the New-Gen: Capability Improvements, Broken Assumptions, and New Attack Strategiescited by 9
- 2021Temporal Consistency Checks to Detect LiDAR Spoofing Attacks on Autonomous Vehicle Perceptioncited by 8
- 2020Towards robust sensing for Autonomous Vehicles: An adversarial perspectivecited by 7
- 2021Explainability-Aware One Point Attack for Point Cloud Neural Networkscited by 7
- 2022Using 3D Shadows to Detect Object Hiding Attacks on Autonomous Vehicle Perceptioncited by 5
- 2024Adversarial 3D Virtual Patches using Integrated Gradientscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.