What Do They See? Interpreting Complex Road Scenarios Through the Eyes of Vision-Language-Action Models for Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Vehicle Learning

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.

Safe2Drive: Evaluating Safe Driving Behaviors of E2E Autonomous Driving Models

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.