Credibility-Weighted Pricing of Autonomous Vehicle Liability Under Operational Design Domain Shift

For safety-critical software, data from the software's operational past (e.g. a sequence of success and failure events experienced by the software) can provide strong statistical support for reliability claims about the software. However, such data might not describe past software failure events in sufficient detail, and this might leave a reliability assessment (based on this data) unable to account for important features of past software failures. In this paper, by extending conservative Bayesian inference (CBI) techniques used in reliability assessment, we illustrate a principled statistical approach for checking the robustness of reliability claims derived from insufficiently detailed operational data. We demonstrate the extent to which insufficient detail in operational data can undermine software reliability claims in autonomous vehicle (AV) safety assessment scenarios. Reliability claims derived from insufficiently fine-grained data might be dangerously optimistic, despite a concerted effort by an assessor to use such data conservatively during the assessment. While these findings are consistent with previous work on the impact of statistical model fidelity in Bayesian software reliability assessments, our work clarifies why attempts to use low-fidelity data conservatively can be naive, and we give the first conservative estimates of the impact of data fidelity on assessments.

Crash-severity models inform screening, dispatch and site prioritization, yet are deployed without a finite-sample statement of what one prediction means. Off-the-shelf guarantees fail here, because the features that make crash severity distinctive defeat them: the KABCO outcome is ordinal, the recorded label is a field assessment agreeing with medical severity about half the time, erring in a structured way, and deployment crosses jurisdictions and years calibration never saw. We develop a certification layer that wraps any severity model unmodified, with distribution-free guarantees using this structure: contiguous ordinal sets that read as "B or worse"; per-class validity for any pre-declared partition, with an oracle efficiency characterization; transfer of coverage to unobserved true severity through a declared reporting band, with a worst-case sharpness result; a one-sided certificate under deployment shift; and severity-weighted risk control. The guarantees compose with an attributable slack budget. The same analysis bounds what certification can achieve. A certified set's informativeness is governed by a functional of the true law that no base model can evade and that cannot be lower-bounded distribution-free; given a declared misreporting channel identified from record-linkage data, a nonvacuous lower bound on that floor becomes computable. On 5.2 million Texas records across seven base models spanning four decades, the layer attaches identical validity and certifies, on the vulnerable road users, a model-independent floor on set width that no base model beats, separating it from a remainder that stays bounded but distribution-free unidentifiable. The framework is released as an open-source package with theorem-level tests.

We investigate how reward design shapes the internal attention patterns of reinforcement learning agents trained for autonomous driving. Using three Perceiver-based agents that share identical architectures and training data but differ only in their reward configurations$\unicode{x2014}$ranging from basic violation penalties to continuous proximity penalties$\unicode{x2014}$we analyze cross-attention allocation across 50 real-world scenarios from the Waymo Open Motion Dataset. A central methodological finding is that naïve pooling of timesteps across episodes substantially underestimates the attention$\unicode{x2013}$risk relationship; within-episode correlation with Fisher z-transform aggregation is the appropriate statistic and reveals a robustly positive link between collision risk and agent-directed attention. Building on this validated methodology, we demonstrate two reward-conditioned effects: agents trained with navigation rewards allocate up to $2.0\times$ more attention to GPS-path tokens than those trained with additional proximity penalties$\unicode{x2014}$and $4.7\times$ more than agents with no navigation incentive$\unicode{x2014}$revealing that reward content directly determines which scene elements the encoder prioritizes, and continuous time-to-collision penalties create a \textit{learned vigilance prior}$$\unicode{x2014}elevated resting agent surveillance maintained throughout collision-free phases. In several scenarios, the complete-reward and minimal-reward models exhibit opposite attention$\unicode{x2013}$risk correlation directions, demonstrating that reward design can qualitatively reverse attentional strategy rather than merely modulating its magnitude. These results suggest that attention analysis is a practical diagnostic for verifying that a reward function produces the intended representational behaviour in safety-critical RL systems.