aiqbench analysis
This research introduces Counterfactual Vision Action Analysis (CVAA), a framework that uses generative inpainting and mechanistic interpretability to decode how end-to-end autonomous driving models process visual scenes. By systematically removing objects, the study reveals discrepancies between model decision-making logic and human perception, highlighting cases where AI attends to irrelevant elements while ignoring critical ones. These findings are essential for building trustworthy self-driving systems by ensuring their internal representations align with safety-critical reality rather than opaque artifacts.
What Do They See? Interpreting Complex Road Scenarios Through the Eyes of Vision-Language-Action Models for Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Vehicle Learning
arXiv:2607.16938v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: End-to-end autonomous driving models are now able to navigate complex road scenarios, mapping raw sensor observations directly to observed paths for open-loop evaluation and often effective driving in closed-loop evaluation. Yet the internal logic of these safety-critical systems remains largely opaque, due to the complexity of traffic scenes. We propose a counterfactual ablation framework called Counterfactual Vision Action Analysis (CVAA) that systematically removes individual detected objects from front-camera images using photorealistic generative inpainting to prepare counterfactual sets to evaluate the difference in the model's response. This isolates the causal effect of each object's presence on the model's planning behaviour. Applied to the Alpamayo 1 trajectory predictor across 210 nuScenes driving scenes, we create a dataset Counter -nuScenes, using which we see that vehicles and pedestrians within the model's 'path' dominate causal influence as expected, while traffic lights, as expected, exert disproportionate effect relative to their image footprint. However, we also find cases where the model responds strongly to objects a human driver would consider irrelevant. This brings forth a deeper question: does the model itself view the scene as a sum of individual objects influencing the outcome, or does it encode an entirely different set of internal features that do not correspond to human-legible scene elements? To further understand this, we compare intermediate representations of original and inpainted image pairs using mechanistic interpretability techniques and examine the effect of the removal through the various model layers. Together, these two stages offer a path from behavioral auditing to representational understanding, creating explainable driving systems and solidifying human-AI trust.
Title:What Do They See? Interpreting Complex Road Scenarios Through the Eyes of Vision-Language-Action Models for Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Vehicle Learning
Abstract:End-to-end autonomous driving models are now able to navigate complex road scenarios, mapping raw sensor observations directly to observed paths for open-loop evaluation and often effective driving in closed-loop evaluation. Yet the internal logic of these safety-critical systems remains largely opaque, due to the complexity of traffic scenes. We propose a counterfactual ablation framework called Counterfactual Vision Action Analysis (CVAA) that systematically removes individual detected objects from front-camera images using photorealistic generative inpainting to prepare counterfactual sets to evaluate the difference in the model's response. This isolates the causal effect of each object's presence on the model's planning behaviour. Applied to the Alpamayo 1 trajectory predictor across 210 nuScenes driving scenes, we create a dataset Counter -nuScenes, using which we see that vehicles and pedestrians within the model's 'path' dominate causal influence as expected, while traffic lights, as expected, exert disproportionate effect relative to their image footprint. However, we also find cases where the model responds strongly to objects a human driver would consider irrelevant. This brings forth a deeper question: does the model itself view the scene as a sum of individual objects influencing the outcome, or does it encode an entirely different set of internal features that do not correspond to human-legible scene elements? To further understand this, we compare intermediate representations of original and inpainted image pairs using mechanistic interpretability techniques and examine the effect of the removal through the various model layers. Together, these two stages offer a path from behavioral auditing to representational understanding, creating explainable driving systems and solidifying human-AI trust.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2607.16938 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2607.16938v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.16938 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 383 words
