Autonomous Driving Safety Evaluation

Generating adversarial driving scenarios is critical for evaluating and improving autonomous vehicle decision-making systems in simulation. Recent approaches rely primarily on the prior knowledge of Large Language Models and Vision-Language Models to generate driving scenarios procedurally. We argue that adversarial scenes should be generated based on the failure diagnosis (e.g., indecisiveness, multi-frame inconsistency) of the driving policy to specifically address the policy's weaknesses instead of relying on prior assumptions. In this paper, we propose SPHINX, a closed-loop framework for adversarial scenario synthesis guided by a simple principle: first explain, then explore. Beyond blindly exploring the scenario space, SPHINX leverages explainable artificial intelligence methods to analyze the policy, identifying key visual concepts and their influence on policy outputs, and the uncertainty of the decisions. Given the interpretable evidence extracted from the policy's own decision process, we use a vision language model to rationalize and criticize failure modes of the current policy. These critics are then used to generate targeted adversarial scenarios for policy retraining and improvement. We demonstrate that SPHINX can highlight an interpretable account of policy failures while other adversarial scene generation cannot. Across the evaluated benchmarks and test suites, SPHINX can be applied to diverse state-of-the-art autonomous vehicle architectures and yields consistent robustness improvements over existing scenario-generation methods.

Autonomous driving has shifted towards end-to-end policy learning, where reliable, interpretable policy evaluation is a fundamental challenge as driving quality is highly context-dependent. Commonly used rule-based driving metrics like EPDMS are interpretable but lack context-awareness, while recent VLMbased evaluations are context-aware but limited by ambiguous VLM outputs and weak physical grounding. To evaluate driving in a manner that is both interpretable and context-aware, we introduce DriveJudge. DriveJudge is a driving evaluation agent that combines rule-grounded evaluation with Vision-Language Model (VLM) reasoning and selectively invokes physically-grounded deterministic rule functions after interpreting the environmental context. To train and evaluate DriveJudge, we curate a large-scale dataset of 33,577 challenging driving samples with human annotations on whether the driving behavior is reasonable in the given scenario. With this dataset, we address the underexplored problem of driving metric evaluation, and introduce two human-aligned benchmark tasks: Driving Quality Classification and Trajectory Preference Selection. DriveJudge outperforms EPDMS for driving quality classification by 21.23 AUC, and the recent VLM-based DriveCritic for trajectory preference selection by 6.5%, setting a new standard for interpretable and precise driving evaluation.

Long-tail scenarios remain a major bottleneck for autonomous driving evaluation, even as datasets grow by orders of magnitude. Existing evaluation pipelines are rarely human-aligned, safety-aware, verifiable, and explainable at the same time: closed-loop metrics often saturate among strong planners, while unstructured human ratings can be noisy without a carefully designed protocol. We formulate planning evaluation as additional-threat detection: given a planner trajectory and an expert reference, does the planner's displacement introduce new unsafe driving behavior? We propose FluidTest, an evaluation pipeline with three components: a pairwise WebUI protocol for reliable human annotation; a taxonomy of 32 semantic threats with evidence-grounded decision graphs; and a three-agent verification system with reflection for precision and auditability. Experiments on the WOD-E2E dataset show that FluidTest produces consistent labels among trained annotators and identifies additional threats in 65% of Poutine trajectories and 51% of RAP trajectories. These results show that state-of-the-art planners can still exhibit substantial safety-relevant failures despite high Rater Feedback Scores (RFS) and low Average Displacement Error (ADE). Additional details, guidance, and code are available at https://fluidtest.web.app.

Safety certification of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) driving planners under ISO 21448 (SOTIF) rests on an Operational Design Domain (ODD) specification that answers two complementary questions: when does the planner start to fail, and how severely does it fail once it does? We evaluate Alpamayo R1, a 10B-parameter open-weight driving VLA, on 15,968 (clip, attack) pairs. We find a conservative-aggregate gap: an aggregate safe threshold of $σ\leq 50$ under a 15% average displacement error (ADE) budget masks well-sampled scenarios that tolerate the top of the tested grid ($σ= 70$). A Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) on the changed-explanation subset identifies six discrete severity bands (BIC-optimal $k{=}6$), so two perturbation conditions with the same mean error can differ materially in their share of high-severity (C4/C5) failures. Joining the two analyses on the same corpus surfaces a finding neither yields in isolation: the scenarios with the loosest noise thresholds are not those with the lowest high-severity rate: STOP_SIGNAL concentrates roughly $4\times$ the C4/C5 share of LANE_KEEPING despite tolerating a larger $σ$. A deployable SOTIF ODD specification for driving VLAs therefore requires a two-dimensional safety envelope, not a single aggregate value per hazard.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used for scene understanding in autonomous driving, but robustness analysis often relies on task-agnostic embedding stability alone. We study whether corruption-induced embedding drift predicts changes in a task-aligned hazard score derived from CLIP image-text similarities. Using controlled corruptions on BDD100K road scenes, we compare embedding drift against margin drift, defined as the change in hazard score under perturbation. The relationship is highly corruption-dependent: some families exhibit strong coupling between representation drift and decision drift, while others induce hazardous decision instability despite relatively modest embedding change. Furthermore, corruption families differ in failure direction: most suppress hazard detections via false negatives, while occlusion instead triggers false alarms, suggesting that benchmark design should account for asymmetric failure modes, not just overall instability rates. These results suggest that robustness benchmarks should include task-aligned stability measures in addition to embedding-level perturbation statistics.

This paper studies runtime safety for autonomous driving when high-level driving commands become faulty or unreliable. Unlike conventional runtime-safety approaches that mainly focus on immediate vehicle safety, the proposed framework evaluates both driving safety and whether the vehicle can still successfully complete its mission before a command is executed. The framework extends highway-env with mission-level fault scenarios such as skipping required checkpoints, entering restricted areas, and generating future routes that can no longer complete the mission successfully. A runtime monitoring system is introduced to detect and reject unsafe or mission-infeasible commands before execution. For comparison, an adapted Simplex-Drive runtime-safety baseline with learning-based driving control, safety fallback control, and runtime controller switching is implemented using the public Simplex-Drive framework. Experimental results show that platform-level runtime safety alone cannot detect mission-level planning faults, while the proposed framework successfully rejects mission-infeasible commands and improves mission success under randomized fault conditions.

Safety-critical traffic scenario generation is essential for evaluating autonomous driving systems under rare but high-risk interactions. Existing diffusion-based methods offer strong controllability in closed-loop generation, but their iterative denoising process is computationally expensive and may accumulate sampling and guidance errors over long rollouts, causing unrealistic motion artifacts such as jitter, abnormal acceleration, and off-road behavior. To address these issues, we propose RiskFlow, a closed-loop safety-critical multi-agent traffic generation framework that formulates future trajectory generation as transport in the action space. Instead of relying on iterative denoising, RiskFlow learns an average velocity field over a finite interval to transform Gaussian action sequences into future acceleration and yaw-rate commands with a single forward pass, using a JVP-based objective for efficient and stable training. At test time, RiskFlow applies output-space guidance to the generated actions, steering selected critical agents toward risky interactions while regularizing off-road behavior, and reconstructs physically feasible trajectories through vehicle dynamics. Experiments on nuScenes with tbsim closed-loop evaluation show that RiskFlow achieves a strong adversariality-realism trade-off across multi-agent and long-horizon settings. Compared with representative baselines, RiskFlow consistently improves realism while maintaining competitive safety-critical generation capability, and substantially reduces inference time for evaluation.

Autonomous driving technology has the potential to reduce the large number of road traffic accidents caused by human error each year, but it also brings new types of risks that need to be evaluated from the aspects of technology, ethics and regulations. Based on public crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), disengagement reports from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the MIT Moral Machines dataset, and a comparative regulatory analysis of five jurisdictions, we have found that the main types of technical failure modes are perception and classification errors. These account for a relatively large proportion of the reported accidents, and it can be concluded that there are different ethical frameworks for autonomous vehicle decision-making, and inconsistent regulations in different areas increase the uncertainty of widespread application. Generally speaking, the problems of technology, ethics and regulation are closely related and need to be solved together. Therefore, this paper recommends a more adaptive and cooperative governance approach that combines engineering standards, ethical discussion, and institutional supervision.

Safety standards for ML-based autonomous driving specify the kind of evidence an assurance case must contain (directed cause-and-effect chains, quantified interventional effects, named root-cause variables), yet the XAI literature is organised by output type and technique family (saliency maps, feature attribution, counterfactuals, causal graphs, language traces). SHAP, the most-recommended ADS XAI method, returns a ranked feature list that no implementation effort can convert into a directed chain (Fig.1). We name this mismatch the evidence-type gap. From AMLAS, ISO 26262, ISO21448, ISO/PAS 8800 we derive 19 testable evidentiary criteria across 7 lifecycle stages with representative clause-cited derivations and score six XAI method classes structurally. Causal XAI emerges as structurally required to satisfy the derived criteria at three stages: hazard identification (+62% rubric gap), incident investigation (+50%), and data management (+50%); the verdict set is stable across thresholds T in (0%, 50%]$ and survives a worst-case single-cell flip down to T = 25%. At the remaining four stages, correlational or language-based methods are comparable or sufficient. The rubric identifies structural admissibility (necessary but not sufficient for compliance): an admissible method's specific output content may still be wrong, and validating that fidelity (the edges a fitted SCM produces, the cause a trace names) is the open assurance challenge. A single-VLA proof of concept on 1,996 real-world driving clips (79,840 rows, ten splits) is consistent with each method's observed output type matching its rubric prediction. XAI method selection for ADS safety assurance should be driven by lifecycle-stage evidence demand, not by method popularity.

Generating safety-critical scenarios is essential for validating and improving autonomous driving systems, yet it inherently requires maximizing adversariality to expose failures while preserving realism. Existing methods usually manage this trade-off with handcrafted heuristics, confining generation to known priors and overlooking underexplored patterns. While recent open-ended agentic evolution can push this limit, unconstrained general agents lack strict simulator grounding and tend to collapse the multi-objective tension into single-scalar maximization. Here we present EvoDrive, the first automated, LLM-based agentic evolution framework for multi-objective scenario generation. EvoDrive employs a simulator-grounded actor-critic architecture where a memory-driven actor iteratively proposes improvements to the generators and critics filter out implausible candidates, and a self-evolving world evaluator routes promising proposals to optimize simulation budgets. EvoDrive further maintains a Pareto archive of evaluated candidates to preserve diverse attack-realism trade-offs and guide future evolution via simulation feedback. Benchmark results on MetaDrive and CARLA show that EvoDrive not only significantly expands the Pareto frontier across various generators, but also produces valuable scenarios for policy training.

Driving vision-language models (VLMs) must accurately understand scenes across diverse conditions defined by Operational Design Domains (ODDs), yet verification remains sparse: many slices are missing, making empirical failure rates unreliable. We propose SliceScorer, a deterministic scoring rule for missing-slice recommendation that combines (i) an exposure-based coverage prior to prioritize rare, under-tested regions, and (ii) a neighbor-failure prior that propagates risk from similar tested conditions. SliceScorer is deliberately simple - interpretable, auditable, and conservative - properties essential for safety-critical validation. For stress testing beyond the declared ODD, we embed SliceScorer within SliceNav, an LLM-orchestrated verification pipeline where the model interprets developer queries to select relevant operators (triage, scoring, acquisition, evaluation) and vocabulary extensions, composing verification workflows while keeping all scoring deterministic and auditable. Experiments on three driving VLMs (WiseAD, DriveMM, Cosmos-Reason2-2B) show that SliceNav surfaces high-risk coverage gaps more effectively than prior slice-discovery methods while maintaining diverse recommendations across the condition space. Ablations confirm both scoring components contribute, and qualitative analysis demonstrates end-to-end workflows from developer query to targeted evaluation.

Recent end-to-end (E2E) autonomous driving policies achieve high driving scores in closed-loop simulations. Yet it remains unclear whether these policies handle common safety-critical scenarios. We present Safe2Drive (S2D), a set of Bench2Drive-aligned scenario extensions focused on three frequent families of road hazards: work zones, pedestrian jaywalking, and occluded vulnerable road users (VRUs). Safe2Drive adds 100 common but challenging scenarios and introduces SafeDriving Score (SDS), a safety-centric metric that augments prior evaluators with pre-crash braking, work zone-object contact, lane centering, and smoothness checks. Evaluating two state-of-the-art policies (LEAD and SimLingo) on S2D, we find that their driving scores drop sharply relative to their reported Bench2Drive baselines (LEAD: from 94.70 DS on Bench2Drive to 39.95 DS on S2D; SimLingo: from 85.07 DS on Bench2Drive to 41.00 DS on S2D) and that SDS on S2D is low (11.85 for LEAD and 15.27 for Sim-Lingo). These results are consistent with brittle safe-driving behaviors such as poor work-zone understanding, red-light violations, and late or absent braking for pedestrians. This study highlights a lack of safe behavioral reasoning in E2E models even when tested on CARLA towns that are part of the training set. We plan to release the code and videos for all 100 S2D scenarios.

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.

Interpretable autonomous driving planners depend not only on generating explanations, but also on those explanations remaining reliable under real-world sensor degradation. In this paper we present a controlled perturbation study of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) robustness in autonomous driving, evaluating Alpamayo R1 (10B parameters) across 1,996 scenarios under eight sensor perturbations (Gaussian noise at four intensities, two lighting extremes, and two fog levels; ${\sim}18{,}000$ inference trials). We find that reasoning consistency is a high-fidelity indicator of trajectory reliability: when Chain-of-Causation (CoC) explanations change after perturbation, trajectory deviation spikes $5.3{\times}$ (21.8m vs 4.1m), with $r\!=\!0.99$ across attack types and $r_{pb}\!=\!0.53$ per-sample (Cohen's $d\!=\!1.12$). A controlled ablation provides evidence that enabling CoC generation is associated with improved trajectory accuracy (11.8% on average across conditions; $p < 0.0001$) under matched inference settings. Over the tested noise range ($σ\in \{10, 30, 50, 70\}$), degradation is approximately linear ($R^2\!=\!0.957$), while standard input preprocessing defenses provide only marginal relief. Together, these results establish CoC consistency as a quantitative proxy for planning safety and motivate reasoning-based runtime monitoring for safer VLA deployment.

Safety-critical scenarios are central to evaluating autonomous driving systems, yet their rarity in naturalistic logs makes simulation-based stress testing indispensable. Most scenario generation methods treat surrounding agents as adversaries, but they either (i) induce failures without explicitly modeling vehicle-road physical limits, yielding visually extreme yet physically unsolvable crashes, or (ii) enforce physical feasibility or policy feasibility in isolation, which can over-focus on aggressive maneuvers or remain tied to a controller-dependent capability boundary. We propose ScenePilot, a feasibility-guided, boundary-driven framework that targets the boundary band: scenarios that are physically solvable in principle yet still cause the deployed autonomy stack to fail. We formulate generation as constrained multi-objective reinforcement learning, combining an RSS-derived physical-feasibility score $σ$ with an online-learned AV-risk predictor $Φ$, and introduce step-level feasibility-aware shielding to keep exploration near the feasibility boundary while avoiding infeasible artifacts. Experiments on SafeBench with multiple planners show that ScenePilot yields substantially higher collision rates (+6.2 percentage points) while preserving physical validity, and that adversarial fine-tuning on these boundary-band scenarios consistently reduces downstream crash rates. The code is available at https://github.com/QiyuRuan/ScenePilot.

The rapid advancement of autonomous driving (AD) technologies has outpaced the development of robust safety evaluation methods. Conventional testing relies on exposing AD systems to vast numbers of real-world traffic scenes -- a brute-force approach that is prohibitively expensive and statistically ineffective at capturing the rare, safety-critical edge cases essential for validating real-world robustness. To address this fundamental limitation, we introduce STRELGen, a scalable framework for the targeted generation of safety-critical driving scenarios. STRELGen synergistically combines a multi-agent trajectory-generation diffusion model (DM) with Spatio-Temporal Logic (STREL) specifications that encode complex safety and realism properties through a highly interpretable formalism. Crucially, monitoring satisfaction levels of these specifications is differentiable, enabling gradient-based search. At inference time, we optimize directly over the DM latent space to maximize STREL formula satisfaction. The result is efficient generation of highly plausible yet safety-critical multi-agent scenarios that lie within the learned data distribution. STRELGen thus provides a flexible, interpretable, and powerful tool for stress-testing autonomous driving systems, moving beyond the limitations of brute-force data collection.

Surrogate Safety Measures (SSMs) are extensively utilised in the evaluation of traffic risk in automated driving contexts. However, the majority of SSM-based evaluations employ fixed thresholds that fail to capture the human response to sustained borderline conditions or the reaction to brief, high-risk peaks. The present work proposes a biologically inspired reinterpretation of SSM thresholds. This is modelled as spiking thresholds of leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons, with multiple SSM inputs combined into a spiking neural network (SNN). The SNN is trained to emit spikes that are aligned with human braking onsets. The training data was recorded in a controlled car-following experiment using the 3D-CoAutoSim platform with CARLA/Unreal and a 6-DOF motion platform, where induced critical events were generated. The results demonstrate that the learned spiking activity qualitatively aligns with braking behaviour across scenarios and captures reactions that are not consistently explained by threshold crossings alone. Analysis across participants further indicates that learned input thresholds remain relatively consistent, while learned decay factors encode different temporal sensitivities for the SSMs. The findings of this study indicate that spiking dynamics may serve as a mechanism to facilitate the convergence of objective SSMs with subjective human safety perception.

Simulation-based testing of self-driving cars (SDCs) typically relies on scripted pedestrian models that do not capture the heterogeneity and uncertainty of real crossing behavior, limiting the realism of safety assessments, especially for jaywalking, which is governed by latent personality traits the vehicle cannot observe. We hypothesize that jointly training pedestrians and the SDC with multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) yields more realistic interaction scenarios than training against fixed pedestrian policies, and that the behavior gap between predictable and unpredictable crossings can be measured directly from trajectories. We co-train an SDC and 12 pedestrians using Multi-Agent Proximal Policy Optimization (MAPPO): pedestrian locomotion follows scripted Dijkstra pathfinding while an RL policy controls high-level go/wait decisions, and jaywalking probability depends on a per-pedestrian trait sampled at episode start and hidden from the SDC. In 500-episode evaluations, the co-trained SDC reached 78% of goals with a 14% collision rate, versus 35%/33% for the best rule-based baseline. A speed differential metric shows the SDC traveled 2.65 m/s faster near jaywalkers than near crosswalk users at close range (0-3 m), indicating jaywalking encounters were not anticipated. Jaywalking was 13% of crossing events but 62% of collisions, and co-training reduced collisions by 30% relative to single-agent RL as pedestrians learned to wait when the SDC approached at speed.

Safety validation of autonomous driving systems requires high-risk scenario coverage, clear collision semantics, executable trajectories, and attributable multi-vehicle interactions. Existing safety-critical scenario generation methods often rely on low-level trajectory perturbations, collision-proxy optimization, or single-adversary search, which may produce adversarial samples with ambiguous collision causes or uncontrolled multi-vehicle collisions. This paper proposes KG-ASG, a collision-knowledge-guided closed-loop adversarial scenario generation framework with primary-support attribution. KG-ASG constructs a structured collision knowledge base and trains a lightweight Collision Expert to infer the target collision mode, the unique primary adversary, support vehicles, and their interaction roles. Guided by this semantic prior, multi-vehicle adversarial generation is formulated as a primary-support process, where the primary adversary induces the main conflict and support vehicles shape the surrounding risk structure without becoming additional colliders. Rule, physical, interaction-safety, and single-collider constraints are imposed as hard gates to filter non-executable samples. To handle reactive ego behaviors, planner-controller feedback is further used for failure diagnosis, candidate re-ranking, and terminal refinement. Experiments on WOMD scenarios reconstructed in MetaDrive show that KG-ASG achieves strong adversarial effectiveness while improving Valid Primary Attack, reducing multi-collision, and obtaining closed-loop recovery gains under IDM, Cruise, and Expert controllers. These results demonstrate that collision-knowledge guidance and primary-support single-collider reasoning improve adversarial effectiveness, interpretability, and executability for autonomous driving safety validation.

We present the first systematic study of faithfulness in Vision-Language-Action (VLA) driving models, analyzing 300 Alpamayo-R1-10B inferences across 100 diverse PhysicalAI-AV scenarios. Our main finding is that output natural-language rationales with trajectories may be significantly unfaithful: (i) overall reasoning fidelity is only 42.5%, with Chain-of-Causation matching scene reality less than half the time; (ii) 94 missed pedestrians in one-third of pedestrian-relevant scenes; (iii) 97.7% trajectory fragility under mild visual perturbations; and (iv) only 48.3% mean reasoning-action consistency, with 53.3% of inferences exhibiting low consistency, including 37.9% of stop-claimed cases where the model continues instead. We formalize faithfulness information-theoretically, define entity and action fidelity with verification criteria, and outline a four-component safety architecture aligned with these results.

Automated driving system deployment requires rigorous validation across safety-critical vehicle-pedestrian interactions, yet real-world datasets rarely capture high-risk scenarios while simulation platforms lack realistic behavior. In response, this study proposes a three-stage framework that combines real-world grounding with adaptive simulation to generate behaviorally realistic safety-critical scenarios at scale. Stage 1 pre-trains multi-agent state-space Transformer-enhanced DDPG (MA-SST-DDPG) agents on real-world safety-critical data to learn human-like interactive evasive behaviors through data-driven learning. Stage 2 deploys pre-trained multi-agents in CARLA for online reinforcement learning to generalize across diverse scenarios, integrating real-world knowledge with simulation experience to produce a refined MA-SST-DDPG model. Stage 3 uses CARLA with the refined model to generate over 198,000 high-resolution interaction episodes from eight intersection scenarios, culminating in the Vehicle-Pedestrian Safety-Critical Interaction (VPSCI) dataset. The Refined MA-SST-DDPG model outperformed baseline methods in reproducing realistic evasive behaviors, achieving the lowest trajectory errors (ADE = 0.072 m, FDE = 0.142 m). Statistical comparison confirmed distributional equivalence between the generated and real-world data in both conflict severity and behavioral response. A Turing test confirmed that the three-stage framework generated evasive behaviors were indistinguishable from real-world interactions. These results demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in producing high-fidelity safety-critical data, offering valuable sources for the development of ADS and simulation-based safety evaluations.

Comprehensive situational awareness is essential for autonomous vehicles operating in safety-critical environments, as it enables the identification and mitigation of potential risks. Although recent Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown promise on general vision-language tasks, our findings indicate that zero-shot MLLMs still underperform compared to domain-specific methods in fine-grained, spatially grounded risk assessment. To address this gap, we propose DriveSafe, a framework for risk-aware scene understanding that leverages structured natural language descriptions. Specifically, our method first generates spatially grounded captions enriched with multimodal context, including motion, spatial, and depth cues. These captions are then used for downstream risk assessment, explicitly identifying hazardous objects, their locations, and the unsafe behaviors they imply, followed by actionable safety suggestions. To further improve performance, we employ caption-risk pairings to fine-tune a lightweight adapter module, efficiently injecting domain-specific knowledge into the base LLM. By conditioning risk assessment on explicit language-based scene representations, DriveSafe achieves significant gains over both zero-shot MLLMs and prior domain-specific baselines. Exhaustive experiments on the DRAMA benchmark demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, while ablation studies validate the effectiveness of our key design choices. Project page: https://cvit.iiit.ac.in/ research/projects/cvit-projects/drivesafe

Real-world autonomous driving, particularly in urban environments with numerous corner cases, requires rigorous testing to ensure product safety and robustness. However, few studies have explored integrating adversarial scenario generation with the training of safety agents in closed-loop testing, enabling efficient co-evolution and mutual enhancement of both. To address this challenge, an adversarial behavior knowledge repository is constructed by applying rule-based filtering to an open-source dataset, combined with knowledge retrieval modules tailored for simulation environments. A large language model (LLM) is employed to integrate knowledge-, data-, and adversarial-driven approaches, generating safety-critical traffic scenarios customized to user needs. Additionally, while evaluating the generated scenarios, we employ reinforcement learning models to train the behaviors of different types of vehicles, thereby enriching scenario diversity beyond existing datasets while preserving realism. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework improves the accuracy of domain-specific language generation by 12%. Moreover, the success rate of newly generated scenario transformations increases by 8%, while obstacle-avoidance capability is enhanced by 30%. For the complete manuscript, please refer to: https://zhenhaooo.github.io/PCASim.github.io/

Establishing trustworthy safety assurance for autonomous driving systems (ADSs) requires evidence that failures arise from avoidable system deficiencies rather than unavoidable traffic conflicts. Current adversarial simulation methods can efficiently expose collisions, but generally lack mechanisms to distinguish these fundamentally different failure modes. Here we present CARS (Context-Aware, Responsibility-attributed Scenario generation), a framework that integrates responsibility attribution directly into adversarial scenario generation. CARS combines context-aware adversary selection with a generative adversarial policy optimized in closed-loop simulation to construct collision scenarios that are both physically feasible and diagnostically attributable. Across benchmark datasets spanning heterogeneous national traffic environments, CARS consistently discovers feasible collision scenarios with high attribution rates under multiple regulation-prescribed careful and competent driver models. By coupling adversarial generation with normative responsibility assessment, CARS moves simulation testing beyond collision discovery toward the construction of interpretable, regulation-aligned safety evidence for scalable ADS validation.

Residual risk metrics have recently been introduced to assess the safety implications of automated driving systems. Existing approaches typically assume a deterministic ego pose and concentrate mainly on perception errors related to surrounding objects and latency effects. In practice, however, automated vehicles operate under considerable localization uncertainty, especially in complex urban settings and in adverse weather conditions. This work extends the spatial residual risk formulation to the belief space by explicitly modeling ego pose uncertainty as a Gaussian distribution. Residual risk is reformulated as the expected degradation-induced risk over the ego pose belief distribution. Within a particle-based risk estimation framework, localization uncertainty is incorporated into the computation of collision probabilities through covariance fusion of ego and object uncertainties.

Safety-critical planning in complex environments, particularly at urban intersections, remains a fundamental challenge for autonomous driving. Existing methods, whether rule-based or data-driven, frequently struggle to capture complex scene semantics, infer potential risks, and make reliable decisions in rare, high-risk situations. While vision-language models (VLMs) offer promising approaches for safe decision-making in these environments, most current approaches lack reflective and causal reasoning, thereby limiting their overall robustness. To address this, we propose a counterfactual chain-of-thought (C-CoT) framework that leverages VLMs to decompose driving decisions into five sequential stages: scene description, critical object identification, risk prediction, counterfactual risk reasoning, and final action planning. Within the counterfactual reasoning stage, we introduce a structured meta-action evaluation tree to explicitly assess the potential consequences of alternative action combinations. This self-reflective reasoning establishes causal links between action choices and safety outcomes, improving robustness in long-tail and out-of-distribution scenarios. To validate our approach, we construct the DeepAccident-CCoT dataset based on the DeepAccident benchmark and fine-tune a Qwen2.5-VL (7B) model using low-rank adaptation. Our model achieves a risk prediction recall of 81.9%, reduces the collision rate to 3.52%, and lowers L2 error to 1.98 m. Ablation studies further confirm the critical role of counterfactual reasoning and the meta-action evaluation tree in enhancing safety and interpretability.

End-to-end autonomous driving has witnessed rapid progress, yet existing benchmarks are increasingly saturated, with state-of-the-art models achieving near-perfect scores on widely used open-loop and closed-loop benchmarks. This saturation does not mean that the problem has been solved; instead, it reveals that current benchmarks remain limited in scenario diversity, object variety, and the breadth of driving capabilities they evaluate. In particular, they lack sufficient long-tail scenarios involving rare but safety-critical objects and fail to assess advanced decision-making such as legal compliance, ethical reasoning, and emergency response. To address these gaps, we propose HiDrive, a new closed-loop benchmark for end-to-end autonomous driving that emphasizes long-tail scenarios and a richer evaluation of driving capabilities. HiDrive introduces a diverse set of rare objects and uncommon traffic situations, and expands evaluation from basic driving skills to more advanced capabilities, including rule compliance, moral reasoning, and context-dependent emergency maneuvers. Correspondingly, we extend previous collision-avoidance-centered metrics into a comprehensive evaluation system that encompasses collision and braking, traffic-rule compliance, and moral-reasoning indicators. Built on a more advanced physics engine, HiDrive provides physically realistic lighting and high-fidelity visual rendering, offering a more challenging and realistic testbed for assessing whether autonomous driving systems can handle the complexity of real-world deployment. The HiDrive software, source code, digital assets, and documentation are available at https://github.com/VDIGPKU/HiDrive.

The representativeness of synthetic pre-crash scenarios is crucial for assessing the safety impact of Driving Automation Systems through virtual simulations. However, a gap remains in the robust evaluation of synthetic pre-crash scenarios' practical equivalence to their real-world counterparts; that is, whether they are similar enough for the intended assessment purpose. Conventional significance testing is inadequate, as it focuses on detecting differences rather than establishing practical equivalence. This study addresses the research gap by extending our previous work on a Bayesian Region of Practical Equivalence (ROPE)-based equivalence testing framework by introducing a binning-based approach to define appropriate statistics and equivalence criteria. Two binning-based statistics are proposed to measure practically meaningful distributional differences between datasets in the context of safety impact assessment. The framework's applicability is demonstrated through a case study, which tests the practical equivalence of two synthetic rear-end pre-crash datasets with a previously developed reference dataset in the context of the safety impact assessment of an Automatic Emergency Braking system. The results show that the framework provides informative quantitative assessments of practical equivalence as well as diagnostic insights into the divergence of datasets. Although the demonstration focuses on rear-end pre-crash scenarios, the framework is generic and extensible to broader validation contexts, providing an interpretable and principled basis for practical equivalence assessment across diverse synthetic data applications.

Most evaluations of autonomous driving policies under adversarial conditions are conducted in simulation, due to cost efficiency and the absence of physical risk. However, purely virtual testing fails to capture structural inconsistencies, supervision constraints, and state-representation effects that arise in real-world data and fundamentally shape policy robustness. This work presents an offline trajectory-learning and adversarial robustness evaluation framework grounded in real-world intersection driving data. Within a controlled data contract, we train and compare three trajectory-learning paradigms: Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP)-based Behavior Cloning (BC), Transformer-based object-tokenized BC, and inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) formulated within a Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) framework. Models are evaluated using Average Displacement Error (ADE) and Final Displacement Error (FDE). Inference-time robustness is assessed by subjecting trained policies to gradient-based adversarial perturbations across multiple intersection scenarios, yielding a structured robustness evaluation matrix. Results show that state-structure design and architectural inductive biases critically influence adversarial stability, leading to markedly different robustness profiles despite comparable nominal prediction accuracy (ADE < 0.08). Inference-time Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) attacks induce final displacement errors of up to approximately 8 meters. The proposed framework establishes a scalable benchmark for studying offline trajectory learning and adversarial robustness in real-world autonomous driving settings.

Open-loop evaluation offers fast, reproducible assessment of autonomous driving planners, but its ability to predict real closed-loop driving performance remains questionable. Prior work has shown that traditional open-loop metrics such as Average Displacement Error (ADE) and Final Displacement Error (FDE) exhibit no reliable correlation with closed-loop Driving Score. In this paper, we ask whether the more recent, safety-aware open-loop metrics introduced by NAVSIM~v2 can bridge this gap. By systematically cross-referencing published results from 15 state-of-the-art methods across NAVSIM (open-loop) and Bench2Drive (closed-loop), we compile a paired dataset of open-loop sub-metrics and closed-loop performance, yielding 8 methods with complete paired data. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) the aggregate NAVSIM PDM Score shows a strong positive but non-monotonic correlation with Bench2Drive Driving Score, with clear ranking inversions; (2) among individual NAVSIM sub-metrics, Ego Progress (EP) is the strongest single predictor of closed-loop success, substantially exceeding the safety-critical collision metric NC; (3) the safety-progress trade-off manifests differently in open-loop and closed-loop: methods that maximize safety at the expense of progress rank highly in NAVSIM but underperform in closed-loop due to timeout and slow-driving penalties. We further demonstrate that a much simpler 3-metric formula matches the predictive power of the full 5-metric PDMS at the same Spearman $ρ{=}0.90$ on our paired sample of $n{=}8$ methods, suggesting that within current state-of-the-art methods -- where TTC and Comfort approach saturation -- these two sub-metrics add little marginal information for closed-loop ranking. Additionally, we identify the snowball effect -- where small open-loop deviations compound into closed-loop failures -- as a candidate mechanism for the residual gap.