Structured Representation Probing for Risk Anticipation in End-to-End Autonomous Driving
Authors: Jiawei Liang, Tianrui Lou, Le Yang, Xianghao Jiao, Wei Wang, Xiaochun Cao
Organizations: School of Cyber Science and Technology, Shenzhen Campus of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518107, China · School of Mathematics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
End-to-end driving policies form structured internal representations of traffic, ego behavior, and road constraints. These representations offer a monitoring interface for anticipating failures, complementing risk signals from trajectories, controls, and manually designed features. We introduce the Structured Representation Probe (SRP), a lightweight monitor that reads actor, ego, and map representations from a frozen policy. SRP learns a separate linear risk direction for each source and aggregates element scores through cardinality-normalized log-mean-exp pooling, retaining sensitivity to salient evidence while reducing dependence on token count. Event-window supervision links the readout to upcoming hard failures, and auxiliary event type heads jointly train the source directions across failure modes. Online alerting uses a single generic score without modifying the driving policy. Bench2Drive experiments on DriveTransformer, UniAD, and VAD show higher frame-level PR-AUC and ROC-AUC than the evaluated runtime baselines. On DriveTransformer at a horizon of 2 seconds, ROC-AUC reaches 0.833 versus 0.715 for temporal consistency, with 2.67% readout runtime overhead. The trained probes also retain the ability to distinguish impending failures on new routes.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Our key insight is that an existing end-to-end driving policy already carries early safety cues in its internal representations, making those representations a natural substrate for risk anticipation.
Fig. 2: SRP framework. Actor, ego, and map representations from a frozen policy are projected into element logits. Both pooling branches use cardinality-normalized log-mean-exp (LME). Event-window labels supervise the generic readout and auxiliary event heads; Ltype averages weighted BCE across the three heads. Flames mark trainable risk directions. Online alerting uses only r with a threshold selected on validation routes.
Model
Method
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
RF @5%FPR
RE @5%FPR
pLead@5%FPR (s)
DriveTransformer
Temporal Consistency
0.127
0.715
0.145
0.505
0.633
DriveTransformer
Task-Aware Risk
0.088
0.570
0.060
0.431
0.532
DriveTransformer
TRFD
0.080
0.496
0.046
0.320
0.337
DriveTransformer
Ours
0.261
0.833
0.300
0.497
0.701
UniAD
Temporal Consistency
0.167
0.751
0.175
0.573
0.768
UniAD
Task-Aware Risk
0.070
0.506
0.042
0.339
0.455
TABLE I: Comparison with runtime monitors on the Bench2Drive test routes using training and evaluation windows of 2 seconds.
Fig. 3: Distributions of risk logits on the Bench2Drive test routes. Solid and dashed curves show positive and negative event-window labels, respectively. Dotted lines indicate mean policy-specific thresholds under the 5% frame-level FPR protocol.
Fig. 4: Representative qualitative warning cases. SRP raises its generic risk score before three distinct hard failures: a red light violation, a collision with another vehicle, and a collision with a roadside guardrail.
Model
Eval. W
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
RF @5%FPR
RE @5%FPR
pLead@5%FPR (s)
DriveTransformer
20
0.176
0.856
0.320
0.437
0.376
DriveTransformer
40
0.261
0.833
0.300
0.497
0.701
DriveTransformer
60
0.315
0.803
0.265
0.556
0.984
UniAD
20
0.226
0.874
0.439
0.635
0.541
UniAD
40
0.339
0.868
0.439
0.725
1.124
UniAD
60
0.408
0.853
0.429
0.804
1.711
TABLE II: Effect of the evaluation horizon on SRP across three driving policies on the Bench2Drive test routes. Probes are trained with a window of 2 seconds and evaluated with windows of 1, 2, and 3 seconds.
Fig. 5: Sensitivity to the training horizon across three driving policies. Rows identify policies, columns show PR-AUC, ROC-AUC, event recall, and penalized lead time, and colors identify evaluation horizons. Shaded bands indicate performance variability.
Model
Type
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
RF @5%
RE @5%
pLead @5%
DriveTrans.
dynamic
0.234
0.810
0.293
0.550
0.775
DriveTrans.
static
0.119
0.808
0.283
0.675
1.153
DriveTrans.
rule
0.130
0.832
0.388
0.857
1.329
UniAD
dynamic
0.166
0.798
0.313
0.609
1.004
UniAD
static
0.128
0.831
0.452
0.750
1.188
UniAD
rule
0.044
0.815
0.440
0.500
0.875
TABLE III: Diagnostic performance of the auxiliary heads by event type on the Bench2Drive test routes with an evaluation window of 2 seconds. Each head is evaluated against its own event labels; lead times are in seconds. DriveTrans. abbreviates DriveTransformer.
Fig. 6: Temporal warning profiles aligned to selected target events on Bench2Drive test routes, grouped by observed failure type. Solid and dashed curves compare generic scores and scores by event type; the bottom row shows source scores averaged across policies. Shading marks the evaluation window of 2 seconds.
Fig. 7: Generic warning lead time for groups of Bench2Drive test routes containing dynamic collision, static collision, or rule violation. Bars show mean pLead under the 5% frame-level FPR protocol.
Fig. 8: Qualitative warning cases grouped by driving policy: a vehicle collision for DriveTransformer and static collisions for UniAD and VAD. N1 and R1 link the scene snapshots to the generic score traces.
Variant
Actor
Ego
Map
Aux. Sup.
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
RF @5%FPR
RE @5%FPR
pLead@5%FPR (s)
No actor
–
✓
✓
✓
0.250
0.813
0.291
0.506
0.712
No ego
✓
–
✓
✓
0.229
0.784
0.261
0.310
0.504
No map
✓
✓
–
✓
0.251
0.821
0.289
0.485
0.680
Actor only
✓
–
–
✓
0.239
0.812
0.286
0.394
0.561
Ego only
–
✓
–
✓
0.245
0.795
0.285
0.495
0.704
Map only
–
–
✓
✓
0.196
0.784
0.204
0.372
0.516
TABLE IV: Effects of representation sources and auxiliary event supervision on the retrained DriveTransformer probe. Checkmarks identify the sources and supervision used; all variants use training and evaluation windows of 2 seconds.
Setting
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
RF @5%
RE @5%
pLead@5%
Full
0.363
0.807
0.360
0.681
1.029
× actor
0.336
0.785
0.326
0.631
0.964
× ego
0.217
0.716
0.205
0.411
0.606
× map
0.366
0.804
0.366
0.674
1.022
TABLE V: Source deletion at inference from the fixed DriveTransformer probe on the new Bench2Drive evaluation set. A red cross marks the removed source; lead times are in seconds. Ego deletion has the largest effect on warning performance.
Fig. 9: Readout and pooling comparisons on DriveTransformer. Paired markers show mean PR-AUC and pLead; connecting lines identify the same setting. Red markers highlight SRP in (a) and its default LME pooling in (b).
Fig. 10: Sensitivity to pooling temperature on DriveTransformer. Red circles mark the default τ=1 ; shaded bands indicate performance variability.
Target data
Model
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
RF @5%FPR
RE @5%FPR
pLead@5%FPR (s)
Bench2Drive (new)
DriveTransformer
0.363
0.807
0.360
0.681
1.029
Bench2Drive (new)
UniAD
0.324
0.864
0.526
0.705
1.138
Bench2Drive (new)
VAD
0.314
0.923
0.604
0.793
1.361
LB2
DriveTransformer
0.312
0.769
0.344
0.737
1.142
LB2
UniAD
0.380
0.829
0.456
0.444
0.683
LB2
VAD
0.371
0.878
0.513
0.765
1.406
TABLE VI: Transfer of probes trained on the original routes to the new Bench2Drive evaluation set with 220 routes and 20 CARLA Leaderboard 2.0 validation routes. Policy and probe parameters remain fixed.
Evaluation set
Policy
FPR (%)
RE
pLead (s)
B2D new
DT
6.36
0.723
1.157
B2D new
UniAD
5.53
0.719
1.181
B2D new
VAD
2.66
0.690
1.073
LB2
DT
2.88
0.684
1.079
LB2
UniAD
5.56
0.500
0.728
LB2
VAD
2.78
0.647
1.159
TABLE VII: Warning performance on new Bench2Drive and LB2 routes with source-validation thresholds held fixed. FPR is the observed false-positive rate.
Model
Params
FLOPs
Overhead
DriveTransformer
2.3K
0.220M
6.47 ms (2.67%)
UniAD
0.8K
0.328M
1.89 ms (0.20%)
VAD
0.8K
0.412M
3.37 ms (1.58%)
TABLE VIII: Parameter counts for the probe alone, FLOPs for the generic score, and measured readout latency across driving policies. Percentages are relative to policy runtime.
Autonomous driving develops vehicles that perceive road scenes, predict interactions, and plan and control safe movement with limited or no human input.
Safety is a fundamental requirement for autonomous driving, yet existing end-to-end driving models still lack explicit risk-aware learning capacities. Existing rule-based risk models provide interpretable safety priors, yet their absolute risk scores depend on handcrafted functions, coefficients, and thresholds. Learning-based risk representations reduce part of this manual design, but their supervision often relies on occupancy-derived labels or heuristic cost values, which may not capture ego-conditioned planning risk. In this paper, we propose DRiF, a data-driven risk-field framework for safer end-to-end autonomous driving. DRiF learns a shared BEV feature with static map segmentation, dynamic risk prediction, and vehicle planning. For dynamic risk learning, DRiF converts rule-based safety priors into pairwise risk labels, and trains the risk field to preserve relative risk ordering instead of regressing handcrafted absolute scores. Experiments on Bench2Drive show that DRiF achieves competitive overall performance, with consistent improvements in driving score, success rate, and collision-related metrics. These results establish relative risk supervision as an effective way to connect explicit safety structure with end-to-end planning. The data and code will be publicly available.
Conventional end-to-end driving systems model the environment with sparse objects and lane elements. While efficient, this paradigm discards planning-critical information in crowded and occluded scenarios, particularly for unstructured obstacles, ambiguous free space, and complex interactions. We propose risk-aware occupancy, a dense BEV representation that explicitly fuses geometric occupancy, map-derived traffic constraints, and future dynamic-agent occupancy as complementary risk signals. Built upon this representation, we develop ROIDrive, an instance-centric end-to-end framework with a dedicated risk-aware occupancy branch. The predicted occupancy is tokenized via sliding-window sampling and injected into planning queries via cross-attention, while temporal query consistency mitigates unreliable flickering queries. We also contribute RiskOcc4D-nuScenes, a benchmark derived from nuScenes and Occ3D-nuScenes with four automated annotation pipelines for multi-dimensional risk supervision. Experiments on representative occupancy architectures verify the learnability and transferability of our representation. Integrated with GenAD, it reduces collision rates by 35.0% (UniAD metric) and 52.9% (ST-P3 metric), confirming the efficacy of the proposed representation modality.
Jiaxing Chen, Hengduo Zou, Yiren Zhao +1
School of Vehicle and Mobility, Tsinghua University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)
Multimodal trajectory prediction improves behavioral coverage in end-to-end autonomous driving, but existing methods remain limited by sparse scene representations. Incomplete evidence leads to low-quality candidate generation and unreliable ranking among geometrically similar trajectories. On a register-based baseline, bad and poor candidates constitute 19.74% of the candidate set, while the oracle-best candidate ranks only 33.9th on average. We propose RRDrive, which introduces risk-aware occupancy as a dense, temporally aligned, and trajectory-queryable representation. Its global structure guides high-quality multimodal generation, while candidate-conditioned risk queries support fine-grained selection. We further construct RiskOcc4D-NAVSIM with automatic risk annotations. RRDrive achieves a selected-trajectory PDMS of 0.951, representing a 1.5% relative improvement over the baseline (0.937), and improves the average candidate PDMS by 7.7%. In challenging scenes, it improves candidate PDMS by 30.2% and increases the Spearman correlation among good candidates by 0.41, from 0.26 to 0.67. To move beyond this oracle setting, we further develop an external RiskOcc predictor, a perception module that estimates risk-aware occupancy directly from sensor inputs. The competitive performance validates the representation's feasibility.
Jiaxing Chen, Hengduo Zou, YuKai Qin +3
School of Vehicle and Mobility, Tsinghua University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Neolix, Beijing, China