The generation of safety-critical traffic scenarios is essential for training and evaluating autonomous vehicles. Prior approaches typically perturb the trajectories of existing agents in a traffic scenario using simplified adversarial objectives to induce safety-critical interactions, which can limit the plausibility and diversity of the generated scenarios. Although inserting new adversarial vehicles can alleviate this limitation, determining when and where to introduce them in a scenario-specific manner remains challenging. In this work, we introduce COllision Snapshot guided TimE-Reversed safety-critical scenario generation (COSTER), a framework that leverages learned traffic priors to determine plausible collision times and locations. COSTER first constructs a collision snapshot by inserting a new vehicle in contact with the target vehicle at the identified collision state within a traffic scenario. Starting from this collision snapshot, a conditional variational autoencoder is used to perform a time-reversed rollout, reconstructing the trajectory of the inserted vehicle backward toward earlier timesteps. Experiments show that COSTER outperforms existing methods in plausibility, diversity, and data efficiency. Moreover, agents trained on COSTER-generated scenarios reduce collision rates by 31% on safety-critical scenarios from the Waymo Open Motion Dataset while also improving ego task completion. The project website is available at https://anonym-121.github.io/COSTER/.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The overview of COSTER. COSTER predicts surrounding vehicle states at each timestep (Sec. III-B ), identifies the highest-risk timestep to construct a collision snapshot by inserting a contextually plausible adversarial vehicle in contact with the target vehicle (Sec. III-C ), and generates physically feasible safety-critical scenarios via time-reversed trajectory rollout with clustering-based selection and refinement (Sec. III-D ).
Fig. 2: Visualization of a sample scenario with overlaid local regions. (a) Region-wise representation. (b) Adversarial vehicle placement. At the given collision time, the peak-probability region within the elliptical area (red dashed line) is selected. The heading is then estimated at the red region, and the adversarial vehicle is translated into contact with the target vehicle to be placed at its final high-probability position.
minADE (m) ↓
minFDE (m) ↓
avgADE (m) ↓
avgFDE (m) ↓
Inference Time (ms) ↓
Constant Velocity
1.695
4.961
1.695
4.961
-
Constant Lane
14.860
17.442
14.860
17.442
-
BMT [ 6 ]
0.417
1.022
0.838
2.190
536.2
COSTER (w/o DSA)
0.557
1.545
1.212
3.460
5.7
COSTER (w/ DSA)
0.259
0.828
0.570
1.966
39.4
TABLE I: Quantitative Comparison on Past Trajectory Prediction Accuracy
Position ↓
Heading ↓
Speed ↓
Size ↓
Mean Value
0.2249
0.4237
0.1564
0.5451
LCTGen [ 21 ]
0.1466
0.1555
0.2286
0.1052
TrafficGen [ 20 ]
0.1367
0.1277
0.1704
0.0937
COSTER
0.1242
0.1116
0.1399
0.0764
TABLE II: MMD Comparison on Vehicle State Inference.
Data Efficiency
Adversariality
Plausibility
Diversity
SUR (%) ↑
CR (%) ↑
ORR (%) ↓
VDD ↓
ADD ↓
CSD (m/s) ↑
CPD ( \SIUnitSymbolDegree ) ↑
CAT [ 14 ]
8.9
53.2
12.3
0.2775
0.2370
3.14
80.1
SEAL [ 17 ]
8.7
60.8
19.1
0.2828
0.2419
3.31
70.8
Adv-BMT [ 6 ]
61.2
100
62.3
0.2394
0.3019
3.37
29.9
COSTER (Ours)
74.1
100
10.2
0.2485
0.0983
4.75
86.2
Random + CVAE
63.5
100
51.8
0.2451
0.1147
3.42
31.6
TABLE III: Quantitative Comparison of Generated Safety-Critical Scenarios.
Fig. 3: Qualitative comparison of generated safety-critical scenarios.
CSD (m/s) ↑
CPD ( \SIUnitSymbolDegree ) ↑
Random timestep
4.12
70.2
Last timestep
4.29
73.3
Velocity entropy timestep
4.75
86.2
TABLE IV: Comparison of Collision Time Determination.
WOMD-Normal
WOMD-Hard [ 32 ]
Training Data
RCR ↑
CR ↓
ORR ↓
RCR ↑
CR ↓
ORR ↓
WOMD-Only
0.68 ±0.03
0.17 ±0.01
0.24 ±0.02
0.30 ±0.02
0.32 ±0.03
0.32 ±0.04
CAT [ 14 ]
0.67 ±0.05
0.18 ±0.01
0.26 ±0.02
0.29 ±0.04
0.33 ±0.03
0.34 ±0.01
SEAL [ 17 ]
0.69 ±0.03
0.16 ±0.01
0.26 ±0.02
0.35 ±0.01
0.27 ±0.02
0.30 ±0.03
Adv-BMT [ 6 ]
0.64 ±0.07
0.20 ±0.02
0.29 ±0.02
0.26 ±0.02
0.38 ±0.04
0.36 ±0.01
COSTER (w/o Aug)
0.71 ±0.06
0.15 ±0.03
0.23 ±0.04
0.38 ±0.04
0.24 ±0.01
0.31 ±0.02
TABLE V: Downstream Evaluation of Policy Safety under Normal and Hard Scenarios