arXiv:2605.06264cs.LG2026-05被引 4

用视觉归因分析自动驾驶决策风险,揭示模型依赖的图像区域与视角分布。

Can Attribution Predict Risk? From Multi-View Attribution to Planning Risk Signals in End-to-End Autonomous Driving

论文配图:Can Attribution Predict Risk? From Multi-View Attribution to Planning Risk Signals in End-to-End Autonomous Driving
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 分层归因策略定位六视角输入中影响轨迹的关键区域。
  • 三个归因统计量与事故风险显著相关,碰撞检测准确率达77%。
  • 适合关注自动驾驶安全可解释性的研究者和工程师。

端到端自动驾驶模型从多视角输入生成未来轨迹,虽提升系统集成度,但决策过程不透明且风险难以定位。现有方法依赖辅助监控模型或文本解释,与规划流程脱节,无法揭示轨迹生成的视觉依据。归因方法可直接关联输入与输出,但需应对六视角输入和连续多步轨迹预测的复杂性,要求归因同时捕捉关键视角、区域及其对输出的影响。为此,本文提出一种分层归因框架:以原轨迹的L2一致性为目标,设计粗到细的区域归因策略,在全六视角输入中搜索候选区域并细化归因。进一步提取三种归因统计量作为规划风险信号:归因熵衡量模型在联合视觉空间中的依赖集中度,单相机空间方差刻画归因在各视角内的分布分散程度,跨相机吉尼系数量化归因在六个摄像头间的分布不均程度。在BridgeAD、UniAD和GenAD数据集上的实验表明,这些统计量与规划风险相关,与轨迹误差的斯皮尔曼相关系数为0.30±0.07,碰撞检测的AUROC达0.77±0.04。该信号在未见场景中泛化性能良好,且在替代归因基线下的表现稳定。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

End-to-end autonomous driving models generate future trajectories from multi-view inputs, improving system integration but introducing opaque decisions and hard-to-localize risks. Existing methods either rely on auxiliary monitoring models or generate textual explanations, but are decoupled from the planning process and fail to reveal the visual evidence underlying trajectory generation. While attribution offers a direct alternative, planning differs from image classification by taking six-view camera images as input and predicting continuous multi-step trajectories, requiring attribution to capture both critical views and regions and their influence on outputs. Moreover, whether attribution maps can support risk identification remains underexplored. To address this, we propose a hierarchical attribution framework for end-to-end planning. Specifically, using L2 consistency with the original trajectory as the objective, we design a coarse-to-fine region attribution strategy that searches candidate regions across the full six-view input and refines attribution within them. We further extract three attribution statistics as predictive signals for planning risk, including attribution entropy to measure how concentrated the planner's reliance is over the joint visual space, within-camera spatial variance to characterize how spread out the attribution is within each view, and cross-camera Gini coefficient to quantify how unevenly attribution is distributed across the six cameras. Experiments on BridgeAD, UniAD, and GenAD show that these statistics correlate with planning risk, achieving Spearman correlations of $0.30 \pm 0.07$ with trajectory error and AUROC of $0.77 \pm 0.04$ for collision detection. The signal generalizes to held-out scenes with negligible degradation and remains stable under an alternative attribution baseline.

自动驾驶归因分析可解释性风险预测

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。