C-CoT: Counterfactual Chain-of-Thought with Vision-Language Models for Safe Autonomous Driving

TL;DR

This paper introduces C-CoT, a vision-language model framework for safe autonomous driving that employs counterfactual reasoning to improve decision robustness in complex urban scenarios.

Contribution

It proposes a novel counterfactual chain-of-thought framework with a structured meta-action evaluation tree for causal safety reasoning in autonomous driving.

Findings

Achieved 81.9% risk prediction recall.

Reduced collision rate to 3.52%.

Lowered L2 error to 1.98 meters.

Abstract

Safety-critical planning in complex environments, particularly at urban intersections, remains a fundamental challenge for autonomous driving. Existing methods, whether rule-based or data-driven, frequently struggle to capture complex scene semantics, infer potential risks, and make reliable decisions in rare, high-risk situations. While vision-language models (VLMs) offer promising approaches for safe decision-making in these environments, most current approaches lack reflective and causal reasoning, thereby limiting their overall robustness. To address this, we propose a counterfactual chain-of-thought (C-CoT) framework that leverages VLMs to decompose driving decisions into five sequential stages: scene description, critical object identification, risk prediction, counterfactual risk reasoning, and final action planning. Within the counterfactual reasoning stage, we introduce a structured meta-action evaluation tree to explicitly assess the potential consequences of alternative action combinations. This self-reflective reasoning establishes causal links between action choices and safety outcomes, improving robustness in long-tail and out-of-distribution scenarios. To validate our approach, we construct the DeepAccident-CCoT dataset based on the DeepAccident benchmark and fine-tune a Qwen2.5-VL (7B) model using low-rank adaptation. Our model achieves a risk prediction recall of 81.9%, reduces the collision rate to 3.52%, and lowers L2 error to 1.98 m. Ablation studies further confirm the critical role of counterfactual reasoning and the meta-action evaluation tree in enhancing safety and interpretability.