用反事实推理提升自动驾驶决策安全性
C-CoT: Counterfactual Chain-of-Thought with Vision-Language Models for Safe Autonomous Driving

- 通过五阶段流程分解驾驶决策,引入反事实推理
- 碰撞率降至3.52%,风险预测召回率达81.9%
- 适合关注自动驾驶安全与可解释性的研究者
复杂城市交叉口的安全关键规划仍是自动驾驶的核心挑战。现有方法(规则或数据驱动)常难以捕捉场景语义、推断潜在风险,尤其在罕见高危情境下表现不佳。尽管视觉语言模型(VLMs)为安全决策提供新思路,但多数方法缺乏反思性与因果推理,限制了鲁棒性。为此,我们提出反事实思维链(C-CoT)框架,利用VLM将驾驶决策分解为五个阶段:场景描述、关键物体识别、风险预测、反事实风险推理与最终动作规划。在反事实推理阶段,设计结构化元动作评估树,显式评估替代动作组合的潜在后果。该自反思机制建立动作选择与安全结果间的因果关联,在长尾和分布外场景中显著提升鲁棒性。为验证方法,我们在DeepAccident基准上构建DeepAccident-CCoT数据集,并使用低秩适配微调Qwen2.5-VL(7B)模型。模型实现81.9%的风险预测召回率,碰撞率降至3.52%,L2误差降低至1.98米。消融实验进一步证实反事实推理与元动作评估树对安全性和可解释性的关键作用。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
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。