Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -16,10 +16,62 @@ tags:
|
|
| 16 |
size_categories:
|
| 17 |
- n<1K
|
| 18 |
---
|
| 19 |
-
# RADIUS_DataSet550
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-
|
| 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
## Dataset Contents
|
| 24 |
Each instance **X** is released as an image plus JSON sidecars:
|
| 25 |
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
size_categories:
|
| 17 |
- n<1K
|
| 18 |
---
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
+
## RADIUS-Drive(及 RADIUS-Data)
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
+
本仓库在 Hugging Face 上发布 RADIUS-Drive(风险感知一致性诊断评测基准)。
|
| 23 |
+
This Hugging Face repo hosts RADIUS-Drive, a risk-aware diagnostic benchmark for safety-critical autonomous driving.
|
| 24 |
+
|
| 25 |
+
GitHub: https://github.com/pupprtseven/RADIUS_Drive_Bench
|
| 26 |
+
Paper:
|
| 27 |
+
|
| 28 |
+
## Benchmark Overview
|
| 29 |
+
|
| 30 |
+
RADIUS-Drive 关注 Pseudo-Correctness(伪正确性):
|
| 31 |
+
模型可能给出表面正确的驾驶决策,但未能识别、定位或验证潜在风险机制。
|
| 32 |
+
|
| 33 |
+
RADIUS-Drive targets Pseudo-Correctness, where models produce correct-looking driving decisions while failing to trigger, localize, or validate underlying risk factors.
|
| 34 |
+
|
| 35 |
+
为此,RADIUS-Drive 提出 SAR(Safety → Awareness → Reasoning)诊断协议,
|
| 36 |
+
通过跨阶段一致性指标,系统性评估模型在安全关键决策中的 风险感知与推理一致性。
|
| 37 |
+
|
| 38 |
+
To this end, RADIUS-Drive introduces the SAR (Safety → Awareness → Reasoning) diagnostic protocol, enabling consistency-centric evaluation of risk perception and decision reasoning.
|
| 39 |
+
|
| 40 |
+
## 任务 / Tasks
|
| 41 |
+
### SAF(Safety)
|
| 42 |
+
|
| 43 |
+
检测模型是否能够识别并响应安全关键风险信号。
|
| 44 |
+
Detect whether the model correctly triggers safety awareness under risk-critical conditions.
|
| 45 |
+
|
| 46 |
+
### AWR(Awareness)
|
| 47 |
+
|
| 48 |
+
评估模型是否能够定位并解释风险来源,而非仅给出结果。
|
| 49 |
+
Assess whether the model localizes and explains the source of risk, beyond outcome correctness.
|
| 50 |
+
|
| 51 |
+
### REA(Reasoning)
|
| 52 |
+
|
| 53 |
+
验证模型的决策是否基于与风险一致的因果推理过程。
|
| 54 |
+
Verify whether decisions are supported by risk-consistent causal reasoning.
|
| 55 |
+
|
| 56 |
+
### X-CONS(Cross-Phase Consistency)
|
| 57 |
+
|
| 58 |
+
检查 Safety、Awareness 与 Reasoning 之间是否存在一致性违背(Pseudo-Correctness)。
|
| 59 |
+
Evaluate cross-phase consistency to diagnose pseudo-correct behavior.
|
| 60 |
+
|
| 61 |
+
## 关键约定 / Key Conventions
|
| 62 |
+
|
| 63 |
+
所有样本均配备 可审计的 ground truth,支持
|
| 64 |
+
reference-based injection 与 reference-free generation 两种场景构造方式。
|
| 65 |
+
|
| 66 |
+
All samples provide auditable ground truth, supporting both reference-based injection and reference-free generation.
|
| 67 |
+
|
| 68 |
+
## 评测结果应同时报告:
|
| 69 |
+
|
| 70 |
+
阶段内性能(per-phase)
|
| 71 |
+
|
| 72 |
+
跨阶段一致性指标(e.g., CF-CDA, Guess)
|
| 73 |
+
|
| 74 |
+
Results should report both per-phase scores and cross-phase consistency metrics.
|
| 75 |
## Dataset Contents
|
| 76 |
Each instance **X** is released as an image plus JSON sidecars:
|
| 77 |
|