AUTOPILOT VQA: Benchmarking Vision-Language Models for Incident-Centric Dashcam Understanding

Spatiotemporal intelligence in autonomous driving (AD) requires an agent to integrate multi-view observations into a coherent scene representation, maintain object continuity across viewpoints and time, and reason about spatial relations, interactions, and future dynamics. However, existing AD vision-language benchmarks largely focus on single-view, static, ego-centric, or single-source question answering, leaving it unclear whether current Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can truly construct and reason over dynamic driving scenes. We introduce DriveSpatial, a benchmark of 15.6K human-verified QA pairs across 20 tasks from five large-scale AD datasets. DriveSpatial evaluates four abilities: Cognitive Scene Construction, Multi-view Relational Understanding, Temporal Reasoning, and Generalization. Unlike prior benchmarks, DriveSpatial is generated from a dynamic multi-relational scene graph that encodes object states, spatial relations, interactions, camera visibility, and temporal correspondences, enabling QA pairs that enforce genuine cross-view and spatiotemporal reasoning. Evaluating 15 representative VLMs reveals a substantial human-model gap: the strongest model trails humans by 28.4 points, with Cognitive Scene Construction emerging as the key bottleneck. Further diagnostics show that language-only prompting is insufficient, while explicit BEV grounding consistently improves performance. These results suggest that current VLMs lack the scene-construction ability needed for reliable spatiotemporal driving intelligence. DriveSpatial and its construction pipeline will be released to support future research.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models with integrated reasoning have been proposed for end-to-end autonomous driving, assuming a tight coupling between reasoning and trajectory generation. However, the robustness of such systems under realistic input perturbations remains largely unexplored. We show that these models are highly vulnerable to realistic input perturbations, achieving up to 89% attack success rate (ASR) on reasoning and up to 72% on trajectory manipulation in closed-loop simulation, leading to increased collision rates and degraded safety metrics. Using NVIDIA's recent Alpamayo models as representative industry-developed VLAs, we conduct the first systematic black-box study of reasoning-enabled VLA models under realistic textual input corruptions, evaluating their impact on reasoning and driving behavior. We introduce a reasoning-aware evaluation framework capturing both semantic and structural aspects of reasoning, along with safety-centric measures. We also introduce a benchmark for evaluating attacks and defenses on reasoning-trajectory interactions in autonomous driving. Our results highlight the need for rigorous evaluation and improved defenses to ensure the safety of reasoning-enabled VLA systems in autonomous driving.

High benchmark accuracy does not guarantee genuine use of visual evidence. We study this problem in traffic accident Video Question Answering (VideoQA), where correct answers should depend on scene-specific visual evidence but may instead be inferred from textual shortcuts. Through an audit of four public benchmarks, we find that several recent open-weight Vision-Language Models (VLMs) perform competitively, and sometimes better, without video input. On the MM-AU benchmark, removing video consistently improves accuracy, and adding more frames further degrades performance. To quantify visual dependence, we introduce two dataset-level diagnostics: Blind Gap, measuring above-chance text-only performance, and Visual Gain, measuring the marginal benefit of adding video. We further propose an instance-level Shortcut Score that combines text-only confidence with visual necessity signals, enabling continuous, training-free filtering of shortcut-prone questions. The resulting subsets reduce shortcut bias and improve visual grounding. Our findings reveal large differences in grounding quality across benchmarks and show that visually grounded evaluation, not just high accuracy, is essential in safety-critical VideoQA.