cs.AIJun 3, 2026

Output Type Before Quality: A Standards-Derived XAI Admissibility Rubric for Autonomous-Driving Safety

Authors: Abhinaw Priyadershi, Mandar Pitale, Jelena Frtunikj, Maria Spence

Organizations: NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA · NVIDIA GmbH, Munich, Germany

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Safety standards for ML-based autonomous driving specify the kind of evidence an assurance case must contain (directed cause-and-effect chains, quantified interventional effects, named root-cause variables), yet the XAI literature is organised by output type and technique family (saliency maps, feature attribution, counterfactuals, causal graphs, language traces). SHAP, the most-recommended ADS XAI method, returns a ranked feature list that no implementation effort can convert into a directed chain (Fig.1). We name this mismatch the evidence-type gap. From AMLAS, ISO 26262, ISO21448, ISO/PAS 8800 we derive 19 testable evidentiary criteria across 7 lifecycle stages with representative clause-cited derivations and score six XAI method classes structurally. Causal XAI emerges as structurally required to satisfy the derived criteria at three stages: hazard identification (+62% rubric gap), incident investigation (+50%), and data management (+50%); the verdict set is stable across thresholds T in (0%, 50%]$ and survives a worst-case single-cell flip down to T = 25%. At the remaining four stages, correlational or language-based methods are comparable or sufficient. The rubric identifies structural admissibility (necessary but not sufficient for compliance): an admissible method's specific output content may still be wrong, and validating that fidelity (the edges a fitted SCM produces, the cause a trace names) is the open assurance challenge. A single-VLA proof of concept on 1,996 real-world driving clips (79,840 rows, ten splits) is consistent with each method's observed output type matching its rubric prediction. XAI method selection for ADS safety assurance should be driven by lifecycle-stage evidence demand, not by method popularity.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 7, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating Explainability in Safety-Critical ATR Systems: Limitations of Post-Hoc Methods and Paths Toward Robust XAI

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly rec ognized as essential for deploying machine learning systems in safety critical environments. In Automatic Target Recognition (ATR), where models operate on image, video, radar, and multisensor data, high pre dictive performance alone is insufficient. Model decisions must also be interpretable, reliable, and suitable for validation. This paper presents a structured evaluation of explainability methods in the context of safety-critical ATR systems: We identify major XAI paradigms, including saliency-based, attention-based, and surrogate ap proaches, as well as recent detection-aware extensions. Based on this, we formalize explainability as an assurance-oriented assessment problem, introduce a taxonomy, and assess these methods with respect to four key dimensions: interpretability, robustness, vulnerability to manipula tion, and suitability for validation and verification. The analysis identifies systematic limitations of current post-hoc explanation methods. In par ticular, we derive critical failure modes such as spurious explanations, instability under perturbations, and overtrust induced by visually con vincing outputs. These findings indicate that widely used XAI techniques may be insufficient for safety-critical deployment. Finally, we discuss implications for ATR systems and outline directions toward more robust, causally grounded, and physically informed explain ability methods. Our results emphasize the need to move beyond visually plausible explanations toward approaches that support reliable decision making and system-level assurance.
Vanessa Buhrmester, David Muench, Dimitri Bulatov +1
Explainable Artificial IntelligenceExplainabilitySafety-Critical ScenariosPost-Hoc
AskPDF
May 13, 2026cs.RO

Learning Responsibility-Attributed Adversarial Scenarios for Testing Autonomous Vehicles

Establishing trustworthy safety assurance for autonomous driving systems (ADSs) requires evidence that failures arise from avoidable system deficiencies rather than unavoidable traffic conflicts. Current adversarial simulation methods can efficiently expose collisions, but generally lack mechanisms to distinguish these fundamentally different failure modes. Here we present CARS (Context-Aware, Responsibility-attributed Scenario generation), a framework that integrates responsibility attribution directly into adversarial scenario generation. CARS combines context-aware adversary selection with a generative adversarial policy optimized in closed-loop simulation to construct collision scenarios that are both physically feasible and diagnostically attributable. Across benchmark datasets spanning heterogeneous national traffic environments, CARS consistently discovers feasible collision scenarios with high attribution rates under multiple regulation-prescribed careful and competent driver models. By coupling adversarial generation with normative responsibility assessment, CARS moves simulation testing beyond collision discovery toward the construction of interpretable, regulation-aligned safety evidence for scalable ADS validation.
Yizhuo Xiao, Haotian Yan, Ying Wang +5
Autonomous DrivingAdversariesSafety-Critical ScenariosCollision PredictionSafety
AskPDF
Jul 22, 2024cs.CY

The Contribution of XAI for the Safe Development and Certification of AI: An Expert-Based Analysis

Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act. In this context, the black-box nature of machine learning models limits the use of conventional avenues of approach towards certifying complex technical systems. As a potential solution, methods to give insights into this black-box - devised in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI) - could be used. In this study, the potential and shortcomings of such methods for the purpose of safe AI development and certification are discussed in 15 qualitative interviews with experts out of the areas of (X)AI and certification. We find that XAI methods can be a helpful asset for safe AI development, as they can show biases and failures of ML-models, but since certification relies on comprehensive and correct information about technical systems, their impact is expected to be limited.
Benjamin Fresz, Vincent Philipp Göbels, Safa Omri +5
XaiCertificationArtificial Intelligence EvaluationArtificial Intelligence SystemsBlack Box
AskPDF