GYLH commited on
Commit
df5f1cc
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 01ccda3

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +54 -2
README.md CHANGED
@@ -16,10 +16,62 @@ tags:
16
  size_categories:
17
  - n<1K
18
  ---
19
- # RADIUS_DataSet550
20
 
21
- RADIUS_DataSet550 is the first release of the safety-critical long-tail driving scenario dataset. It contains **550 instances** in total, including **500 safety-critical long-tail scenes** and **50 normal scenes**.
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