Papers › Role of Spatial Context in Adversarial Robustness for Object Detection

Role of Spatial Context in Adversarial Robustness for Object Detection

30 Sep 2019arXiv:1910.00068archive 2025-07-28

Aniruddha Saha, Akshayvarun Subramanya, Koninika Patil, Hamed Pirsiavash

The benefits of utilizing spatial context in fast object detection algorithms have been studied extensively. Detectors increase inference speed by doing a single forward pass per image which means they implicitly use contextual reasoning for their predictions. However, one can show that an adversary can design adversarial patches which do not overlap with any objects of interest in the scene and exploit contextual reasoning to fool standard detectors. In this paper, we examine this problem and design category specific adversarial patches which make a widely used object detector like YOLO blind to an attacker chosen object category. We also show that limiting the use of spatial context during object detector training improves robustness to such adversaries. We believe the existence of context based adversarial attacks is concerning since the adversarial patch can affect predictions without being in vicinity of any objects of interest. Hence, defending against such attacks becomes challenging and we urge the research community to give attention to this vulnerability.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from UMBCvision/Contextual-Adversarial-Patches. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections