Enhancing LLM-based Autonomous Driving Agents to Mitigate Perception Attacks
This addresses safety issues in autonomous driving systems for real-world deployment, though it is incremental as it extends prior LLM-based systems.
The paper tackles the vulnerability of LLM-based autonomous driving agents to perception attacks, which cause crashes or rule violations 63.26% of the time, and introduces Hudson, a method that improves attack detection accuracy to up to 83.3% and safe decision rates to up to 86.4%.
There is a growing interest in integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with autonomous driving (AD) systems. However, AD systems are vulnerable to attacks against their object detection and tracking (ODT) functions. Unfortunately, our evaluation of four recent LLM agents against ODT attacks shows that the attacks are 63.26% successful in causing them to crash or violate traffic rules due to (1) misleading memory modules that provide past experiences for decision making, (2) limitations of prompts in identifying inconsistencies, and (3) reliance on ground truth perception data. In this paper, we introduce Hudson, a driving reasoning agent that extends prior LLM-based driving systems to enable safer decision making during perception attacks while maintaining effectiveness under benign conditions. Hudson achieves this by first instrumenting the AD software to collect real-time perception results and contextual information from the driving scene. This data is then formalized into a domain-specific language (DSL). To guide the LLM in detecting and making safe control decisions during ODT attacks, Hudson translates the DSL into natural language, along with a list of custom attack detection instructions. Following query execution, Hudson analyzes the LLM's control decision to understand its causal reasoning process. We evaluate the effectiveness of Hudson using a proprietary LLM (GPT-4) and two open-source LLMs (Llama and Gemma) in various adversarial driving scenarios. GPT-4, Llama, and Gemma achieve, on average, an attack detection accuracy of 83. 3%, 63. 6%, and 73. 6%. Consequently, they make safe control decisions in 86.4%, 73.9%, and 80% of the attacks. Our results, following the growing interest in integrating LLMs into AD systems, highlight the strengths of LLMs and their potential to detect and mitigate ODT attacks.