Driving risk emerges from the required two-dimensional joint evasive acceleration

Safety is a fundamental requirement for autonomous driving, yet existing end-to-end driving models still lack explicit risk-aware learning capacities. Existing rule-based risk models provide interpretable safety priors, yet their absolute risk scores depend on handcrafted functions, coefficients, and thresholds. Learning-based risk representations reduce part of this manual design, but their supervision often relies on occupancy-derived labels or heuristic cost values, which may not capture ego-conditioned planning risk. In this paper, we propose DRiF, a data-driven risk-field framework for safer end-to-end autonomous driving. DRiF learns a shared BEV feature with static map segmentation, dynamic risk prediction, and vehicle planning. For dynamic risk learning, DRiF converts rule-based safety priors into pairwise risk labels, and trains the risk field to preserve relative risk ordering instead of regressing handcrafted absolute scores. Experiments on Bench2Drive show that DRiF achieves competitive overall performance, with consistent improvements in driving score, success rate, and collision-related metrics. These results establish relative risk supervision as an effective way to connect explicit safety structure with end-to-end planning. The data and code will be publicly available.

Real-time driving risk assessment provides an essential basis for proactive safety by identifying and quantifying the danger of ongoing road interactions before adverse outcomes occur. However, due to the scarcity of collision data and frame-level risk labels, existing driving risk assessment methods often rely on surrogate objectives, which may imperfectly align with true collision risk and not faithfully reflect the relative danger of driving interaction. This paper proposes a comparison-based ordinal risk learning framework that learns collision-relevant risk scores from pairwise supervision in driving data, directly modeling relative risk ordering without requiring numerical frame-level risk labels. We derive pairwise comparisons from three sources of event-structured driving data for such ordinal risk learning: temporal progression within safety-critical sequences, event-level contrast between dangerous and normal interactions, and physics-based counterfactual perturbations. On this basis, instantiations with three risk-scoring function parameterizations are implemented, including directly learning risk scores from comparison data, and aligning existing single or multiple surrogate-based risk models. The proposed framework is evaluated on the 100-Car and SHRP2 naturalistic driving datasets using a proactive collision warning task. Results show that the proposed framework improves high-recall risk discrimination, warning precision, and warning lead time over representative surrogate-based baselines across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution evaluations. These results suggest that the proposed framework can contribute to proactive safety research by providing more reliable risk assessment for automated driving systems and safety-critical driving interactions.

Collision anticipation in autonomous driving requires not only accurate early warnings but also interpretable reasoning about what risk factors are being tracked and how risk evolves over time. Existing methods fall short in this regard: feature-driven models are opaque, post-hoc explanations often lack fidelity, and concept-based methods are mostly designed for static recognition rather than dynamic driving scenes. We propose CARA (Concept-Aware Risk Attention), an intrinsically interpretable spatio-temporal framework for collision anticipation. CARA derives domain-grounded risk concepts from accident narratives, aligns them with video frames via vision-language similarity, and organizes them into evolving concept trajectories. These trajectories provide explicit risk evidence that guides spatial attention, temporal attention, and anticipation, allowing semantic concepts to directly influence both where the model attends and how it predicts risk over time. By treating semantic risk factors as dynamic intermediate evidence rather than auxiliary post-hoc explanations, CARA tightly couples interpretability with the predictive process. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks show that CARA consistently improves anticipation accuracy and warning earliness over strong baselines, while providing sparse and semantically grounded concept evidence.