ExceptionDrive: A Planning-Oriented Counterfactual Corner-Case Benchmark for Autonomous Driving
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Average performance on routine driving benchmarks does not establish planner reliability under rare, safety-critical hazards. We proposed ExceptionDrive, a counterfactual planning benchmark that uses VLM-assisted screening, localized multi-view editing, and quality auditing to insert hazards into real nuScenes scenes while preserving their context. Its 21 tasks span six safety families and define hazard or conflict regions, local safety constraints, and acceptable responses. Because hazard insertion can invalidate the recorded human trajectory, our reference-free protocol evaluates edited predictions using Unsafe Rate (UR), Hazard Clearance Compliance (HCC), Hazard Proximity Response (HPR), and Counterfactual Trajectory Shift (CTS), which measure core-region intrusion, clearance compliance, clearance relative to a prescribed margin, and counterfactual trajectory change. Seven representative planners frequently intrude into hazard regions or provide insufficient clearance. We also develop a Reminder Agent that, without sample-specific task labels, converts visual evidence and the shared taxonomy into structured records of hazard presence, type, and a recommended high-level strategy. The agent neither predicts trajectories nor controls the vehicle; its records guide a VLM-based decision agent. In zero-shot experiments, the reminders improve strategy accuracy and reduce under-warning.
Results and benchmarks
Average performance on routine driving benchmarks does not establish planner reliability under rare, safety-critical hazards.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use, Autonomous driving
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents, Autonomous Driving
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.