arXiv preprint ·
Printability-Constrained Adversarial Decals for Near-Nadir Aerial Perception: Measured Ink Gamuts, Nested Realism Constraints, and a Physical-World Bound
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Adversarial patches for aerial perception are typically evaluated as digital composites, with printing left as an implementation detail. This study imposes three physical constraints during optimization rather than after it: the color range a particular printer can reproduce, the size of the flat panel a vehicle offers, and the loss of fine detail incurred when the patch is imaged from altitude. The principal comparison isolates the ink set. Two patches share all seventeen recorded optimization settings and differ only in the colors available to them. One is constrained to a uniform color cube; the other to a gamut measured by printing and scanning a 216-patch chart. Each was optimized at three seeds and evaluated against thirteen victim conditions, with every rate reported against a size-matched optimized control. The effect of the measured gamut is victim-dependent rather than uniform. Net attack success rises on three of six closed-set segmentation victims, and for these the seed ranges of the two ink sets are disjoint: $+0.120$ on DeepLabv3-R101 and $+0.041$ on SegFormer-B0. The color-cube patch is consistently stronger on the open-vocabulary segmenter and on two of four detectors, though no detector exceeds a net of $+0.026$ under either ink set. The natural explanation is that a printable palette is simply less chromatic and lower in frequency than a digital one. Eleven further patches test this account and it does not hold. Once cardinality is matched, a palette as chromatic as the cube attacks equally well. Cardinality itself shows no trend from three inks to thirty-two. Palettes matched on cardinality, lightness and chroma, and differing only in hue placement, span $0.035$ to $0.136$. A physical evaluation with printed decals did not detect transfer; it bounds the transferred rate at $0.133$, which does not exclude the simulated value of $0.121$.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computer Vision
NutriVision: Ingredient-Conditioned Fusion and Prediction for Single-Image Food Nutrition Estimation
SCOPD: Sparse-Context On-Policy Self-Distillation for Efficient Vision-Language Models
Parameter-Efficient 3D Segmentation of Liver and Liver tumors: Depthwise factorization Scales Better Than Dense Convolution with Spatial Dimensionality
ARCH-B: Architectural Representation, Comprehension and Hierarchy Benchmark
SemReward-VL: Semantic Reward-Guided Video-Language Adaptation for Developmental Behavior Assessment
Get the few papers worth your time in Computer Vision every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.