From Leaderboard to Deployment: Code Quality Challenges in AV Perception Repositories

Perception plays a central role in connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs), underpinning not only conventional modular driving stacks, but also cooperative perception systems and recent end-to-end driving models. While deep learning has greatly improved perception performance, its statistical nature makes perfect predictions difficult to attain. Meanwhile, standard training objectives and evaluation benchmarks treat all perception errors equally, even though only a subset is safety-critical. In this paper, we investigate safety-aligned evaluation and optimization for 3D object detection that explicitly characterize high-impact errors. Building on our previously proposed safety-oriented metric, NDS-USC, and safety-aware loss function, EC-IoU, we make three contributions. First, we present an expanded study of single-vehicle 3D object detection models across diverse neural network architectures and sensing modalities, showing that gains under standard metrics such as mAP and NDS may not translate to safety-oriented criteria represented by NDS-USC. With EC-IoU, we reaffirm the benefit of safety-aware fine-tuning for improving safety-critical detection performance. Second, we conduct an ego-centric, safety-oriented evaluation of AV-infrastructure cooperative object detection models, underscoring its superiority over vehicle-only models and demonstrating a safety impact analysis that illustrates the potential contribution of cooperative models to "Vision Zero." Third, we integrate EC-IoU into SparseDrive and show that safety-aware perception hardening can reduce collision rate by nearly 30% and improve system-level safety directly in an end-to-end perception-to-planning framework. Overall, our results indicate that safety-aligned perception evaluation and optimization offer a practical path toward enhancing CAV safety across single-vehicle, cooperative, and end-to-end autonomy settings.

Third-party evaluations of autonomous vehicle (AV) safety can play a vital role in improving public acceptance, building consumer confidence, and establishing effective safety standards. In Part I of this study, we propose a dedicated third-party testing initiative for systematically evaluating AV behavioral safety. In this paper, we validate our proposed framework using Autoware.Universe, an open-source Level 4 Automated Driving System (ADS), tested both in simulated environments and on the physical test track at the University of Michigan's Mcity Testing Facility. The results indicate that Autoware.Universe possesses 6 out of 14 behavioral competencies and exhibited a crash rate of 3.01x10^-3 crashes per mile, approximately 1,000 times higher than the average human driver crash rate. During the tests, we also uncovered a number of unknown unsafe scenarios for Autoware.Universe. These findings underscore the necessity of behavioral safety evaluations for improving AV safety performance prior to widespread public deployment.

The rapid expansion of research in LLM safety presents challenges in tracking advancements, making benchmarks important evaluation infrastructures for identifying key trends and facilitating systematic comparisons. Yet no systematic assessment exists of their code quality and runnability, nor of what factors are associated with the community's adoption of certain benchmarks over others. To address this gap, we conduct a systematic measurement study of 31 LLM safety benchmarks (covering prompt injection, jailbreak, and hallucination) with 382 non-benchmark papers as a control group, combining automated static analysis, human runnability testing (220+ person-hours), and bibliometric analysis. We find that only 39% of benchmark repositories can run without modification, only 16% provide flawless installation guides, and a mere 6% include ethical considerations despite containing potentially harmful content. These deficiencies persist across the study period with no significant improvement. Analyzing adoption factors, we find that benchmark adoption correlates with author prominence and code runnability, but not with code quality standards such as Pylint score and maintainability, suggesting that the community's benchmark selection does not reward higher coding standards. Based on these results, we identify potential safety and reliability concerns. Some safety benchmark repositories openly expose harmful content, such as successful jailbreak responses, without any ethical warning or access control, effectively serving as unguarded attack resources. Furthermore, when benchmarks require ad-hoc modifications to run, downstream safety evaluations across different papers may not be comparable. We present case studies illustrating these concrete consequences and propose a targeted checklist to help benchmark contributors improve code quality, documentation, and ethical practices.