Organizations: Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Health, School of Psychology and Counselling, Australia · ARC Training Centre for Automated Vehicles in Rural and Remote Regions (AVR3), Australia · Université Gustave Eiffel, Laboratory of Applied Psychology and Ergonomics, France
Automated vehicles must explain their decisions in ways that passengers can understand, monitor, and trust. Existing language-annotated driving datasets are mostly observer-written, post-hoc, simulation-based, or generated from sensor inputs, rather than elicited from the driver performing the action. We introduce NARRATE, a multimodal real-world Australian driving dataset comprising 2,050 annotated events from 35 experienced drivers and driving instructors on public roads. Each event is grounded in synchronised visual, localisation, motion, and LiDAR streams and paired with in-vehicle and/or post-drive free-text explanations. NARRATE provides action labels, scenario-context labels spanning six high-level and 32 fine-grained categories, and span-level Situational Awareness (SA) annotations over driver explanations for Perception, Comprehension and Projection. Four benchmark tasks (SA, scenario-context, driver-action classification, and explanation generation) show that this structure is learnable from driver language, while fine-grained context recognition and explanation generation remain challenging. NARRATE paves a path towards more human-centred and domain-aware explanation models for automated driving.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: NARRATE data collection protocol: (A) instrumented vehicle and in-cabin setup; (B) real-time explanation elicitation and event tagging during the drive; (C) post-drive video-cued interview using the synchronised multi-view replay dashboard.
Figure 2: Representative events from NARRATE. Each panel shows an annotated driving event with its driver-action label, high-level and fine-grained scenario-context tags, three front-centre camera frames sampled around the tagged event time, and the corresponding driver explanations. The middle frame marks the tagged event, while the neighbouring frames provide pre- and post-event visual context. In-vehicle explanations were recorded during driving, whereas post-drive explanations were recalled during the video-cued debrief.
Dataset
Cam.
Sensors
Source
Lang.
SA
Act.
Ctx.
Size
Hrs
Drv
Perception & behaviour
nuScenes [ 18 ]
6
V,L,Ra,G,I
None
–
✗
✗
✗
1,000 scn.
5.5
n/r
BDD100K [ 19 ]
1
V,G,I
None
–
✗
✗
✗
100K videos
∼ 1,100 der.
crowd
HDD [ 20 ]
3
V,L,I,G,C
Labels only
Lbl
✗
✓
✓ ∗
137 sess.
104
n/r
Language & explanation
Talk2Car [ 21 ]
6
V,L,Ra,G
Human commands
Cmd. †
✗
✓
✗
11,959 cmds.
n/a
n/a
Table 1: Comparison with related datasets. Columns: Cam. = number of cameras; Lang. = language format; SA = Situational Awareness; Act. = action labels; Ctx. = context labels; Size = headline annotated count (unit as reported); Hrs = hours of driving/video; Drv = distinct human drivers. Sensors: V = video; L = LiDAR; I = IMU; G = GPS; C = CAN; Ra = radar; D = dynamics; Sim. = simulator; var. = variable; mul. = multiple. Language: FT = free text; QA = question–answer; Cmd. = commands; Cat. = categories; Lbl = labels; CF = counterfactual; CoC = chain of causation. Scale: n/r = not reported; n/a = not applicable (built on another dataset or simulated); crowd = crowdsourced (no fixed driver count); der. = derived by us; seg. = segments; scn. = scenes; sess. = sessions. ‡ Reasoning structure, not Endsley L1/L2/L3. ∗ Causal/scenario labels only. † Instruction or advice, not driver explanation. a Alpamayo hours n/r for the 700K CoC set; the paper’s 80,000 h is the fleet pre-training pool, not annotated reasoning hours. b CoVLA also stated as 6M frames / 431K sampled trajectory points; 83.3 h = 30 s × 10,000. c HAD: 45,629 advice annotations (25,549 action / 20,080 attention) over the clips. d NARRATE Hrs given as annotated / recorded: 8.5 h annotated event footage (2,050 × 15 s) and ∼ 23 h total driving recorded (35 × 40 min).
Component
Train
Val
Test
Total
Participants
24
5
6
35
Events
1,402
272
376
2,050
IV explanations
875
171
227
1,273
Post explanations
750
155
205
1,110
Dual (both)
223
54
56
333
IV words (mean ± SD)
17.0±11.4
11.8±9.5
12.9±7.9
15.6±10.8
Table 2: NARRATE dataset splits. IV = in-vehicle; Post = post-drive.
Figure 3: Dataset statistics and distributions. Panels summarise the 14.5 km route, action and context labels, train/validation/test splits, reliability-sample representativeness, explanation length, and content-word differences between in-vehicle and post-drive explanations.
In-vehicle
Post-drive
Model
L1
L2
L3
MF1
L1
L2
L3
MF1
Majority
0.906
0.964
0.773
0.881
0.904
0.946
0.801
0.884
TF-IDF+LR
0.908
0.964
0.811
0.894
0.916
0.949
0.857
0.907
DistilBERT
0.906
0.964
0.846
0.905 ±.004
0.915
0.946
0.882
0.914 ±.007
BERT-base
0.917
0.963
0.854
0.911 ±.006
0.915
0.949
0.878
0.914 ±.005
RoBERTa-base
0.915
0.964
0.863
0.914 ±.007
0.924
0.949
0.861
0.911 ±.008
Table 4: T1: Situational Awareness classification on the participant-disjoint test set. MF1 = Macro-F1; ↑ higher is better. Trainable models report mean ± std over 5 seeds.
6-class IV
6-class Post
32-class Primary
Model
MF1
WF1
MF1
WF1
MF1
WF1
Majority
0.000
−
0.000
−
−
−
TF-IDF+LR
0.342
−
0.377
−
−
−
DistilBERT
0.315 ±.025
0.562 ±.040
0.309 ±.048
0.516 ±.076
−
−
BERT-base
0.289 ±.045
0.520 ±.072
0.317 ±.049
0.534 ±.079
0.038 ±.023
0.086 ±.061
RoBERTa-base
0.407 ±.023
0.697 ±.023
0.418 ±.004
0.703 ±.008
0.035 ±.011
0.100 ±.048
Table 5: T2: Context classification on the participant-disjoint test set. MF1 = Macro-F1; WF1 = Weighted-F1; ↑ higher is better. The 32-class MF1 is computed over labels with at least five test instances. Trainable models report mean ± std over 5 seeds.
Model
Modality
Acc
MF1
Majority
−
0.476
0.065
TF-IDF+LR
Text
0.681
0.228
CLIP+LR
Video
0.468
0.219
Kinematics MLP
Motion
0.586 ±.007
0.241 ±.007
CLIP+Kin MLP
Video+Motion
0.629 ±.015
0.306 ±.016
DistilBERT
Text
0.708 ±.018
0.246 ±.024
Table 6: T3: Driver-action classification on the participant-disjoint test set ( n=376 ). Acc = Accuracy; MF1 = Macro-F1; ↑ higher is better. Trainable models report mean ± std over 5 seeds.
Model
Type
B4
RL
MET
BS
Random
Retrieval
0.010 ±.001
0.115 ±.005
0.091 ±.004
0.872 ±.001
Action
Retrieval
0.012 ±.004
0.129 ±.028
0.115 ±.047
0.872 ±.003
Action+Context
Retrieval
0.019 ±.007
0.158 ±.016
0.133 ±.021
0.879 ±.005
CLIP-NN
Retrieval
0.012
0.132
0.108
0.875
CLIP+Kin-NN
Retrieval
0.013
0.142
0.110
0.876
FLAN-T5-base
Fine-tuned
0.034 ±.001
0.215 ±.010
0.144 ±.019
0.892 ±.001
Table 7: T4: Explanation generation on the participant-disjoint test set ( n=376 ). B4 = BLEU-4; RL = ROUGE-L; MET = METEOR; BS = BERTScore-F1; ↑ higher is better. Fine-tuned models report mean ± std over 5 seeds.
The application of computer vision is gradually increasing across various domains. They employ deep learning models with a black-box nature. Without the ability to explain the behavior of neural networks, especially their decision-making processes, it is not possible to recognize their efficiency, predict system failures, or effectively implement them in real-world applications. Due to the inevitable use of deep learning in fully automated driving systems, many methods have been proposed to explain their behavior; however, they suffer from flawed reasoning and unreliable metrics, which have prevented a comprehensive understanding of complex models in autonomous vehicles and hindered the development of truly reliable systems. In this study, we propose a multi-scale attention-based model in which driving decisions are fed into the reasoning component to provide case-specific explanations for each decision simultaneously. For quantitative evaluation of our model's performance, we employ the F1-score metric, and also proposed a new metric called the Joint F1 score to demonstrate the accurate and reliable performance of the model in terms of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). In addition to the BDD-OIA dataset, the nu-AR dataset is utilized to further validate the generalization capability and robustness of the proposed network. The results demonstrate the superiority of our reasoning network over the classic and state-of-the-art models.
Maryam Sadat Hosseini Azad, Shahriar Baradaran Shokouhi, Amir Abbas Hamidi Imani +2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran · Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G, Canada
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as reasoning engines in autonomous driving, yet their decision-making remains opaque. We propose to study their decision process through counterfactual explanations, which identify the minimal semantic changes to a scene description required to alter a driving plan. We introduce DRIV-EX, a method that leverages gradient-based optimization on continuous embeddings to identify the input shifts required to flip the model's decision. Crucially, to avoid the incoherent text typical of unconstrained continuous optimization, DRIV-EX uses these optimized embeddings solely as a semantic guide: they are used to bias a controlled decoding process that re-generates the original scene description. This approach effectively steers the generation toward the counterfactual target while guaranteeing the linguistic fluency, domain validity, and proximity to the original input, essential for interpretability. Evaluated using the LC-LLM planner on a textual transcription of the highD dataset, DRIV-EX generates valid, fluent counterfactuals more reliably than existing baselines. It successfully exposes latent biases and provides concrete insights to improve the robustness of LLM-based driving agents. The code is available at "https://github.com/Amaia-CARDIEL/DRIV_EX" .
Amaia Cardiel, Eloi Zablocki, Elias Ramzi +1
Aptikal, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France · Valeo.ai, Paris, France
Reasoning is a promising route to the generalization that autonomous driving requires in the long tail, as it can infer how the elements of a scene depend on one another and traverse those dependencies to conclusions beyond what is observed. Yet it is hard to tell whether a model's conclusions follow the scene's dependencies, because no driving representation makes them explicit enough to test against. Text-based reasoning traces lack spatio-temporal grounding, spatio-temporal scene graphs lack causal links, and reasoning annotations at scale are increasingly model-generated and hard to verify. To this end, we introduce CASCADE (Causal Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Driving Environments), which encompasses two components: (1) a structured scene representation for reasoning in driving scenes and (2) a human-annotated dataset built on it. For every actor that interacts with the ego vehicle, the CASCADE representation records frame-by-frame, for as long as the actor is visible, what action is taken, where it occurs, and how it depends on the actions and states of others. The resulting structure makes reasoning predictions machine-verifiable: they can be scored against it element by element, without relying on (M)LLM judges. The CASCADE dataset provides comprehensive human annotations for 2,066 driving clips of the PhysicalAI dataset, with over 34K elements that establish the spatio-temporal and causal context of each scene, including 8.6K time-stamped ego and agent actions, 3.7K causal links and 2.9K potential influences, and 6.1K annotations for agents, objects, traffic lights, and environments. Being entirely human-annotated, CASCADE provides the reference for this comparison: benchmarking the reasoning abilities of Physical AI models, and verifying the quality of automatically generated reasoning labels. The CASCADE dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/nvidia/cascade.
Jenny Schmalfuss, Despoina Paschalidou, Simon Gerstenecker +2
NVIDIA · ETH Zürich · Work done during NVIDIA Internship