CRASH: Cognitive Reasoning Agent for Safety Hazards in Autonomous Driving
On the map: LLM reasoning → Chain-of-thought reasoning for driving
also in 2 more
Abstract (arXiv)
As AVs grow in complexity and diversity, identifying the root causes of operational failures has become increasingly complex. The heterogeneity of system architectures across manufacturers, ranging from end-to-end to modular designs, together with variations in algorithms and integration strategies, limits the standardization of incident investigations and hinders systematic safety analysis. This work examines real-world AV incidents reported in the NHTSA database. We curate a dataset of 2,168 cases reported between 2021 and 2025, representing more than 80 million miles driven. To process this data, we introduce CRASH, Cognitive Reasoning Agent for Safety Hazards, an LLM-based agent that automates reasoning over crash reports by leveraging both standardized fields and unstructured narrative descriptions. CRASH operates on a unified representation of each incident to generate concise summaries, attribute a primary cause, and assess whether the AV materially contributed to the event. Our findings show that (1) CRASH attributes 64% of incidents to perception or planning failures, underscoring the importance of reasoning-based analysis for accurate fault attribution; and (2) approximately 50% of reported incidents involve rear-end collisions, highlighting a persistent and unresolved challenge in autonomous driving deployment. We further validate CRASH with five domain experts, achieving 86% accuracy in attributing AV system failures. Overall, CRASH demonstrates strong potential as a scalable and interpretable tool for automated crash analysis, providing actionable insights to support safety research and the continued development of autonomous driving systems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Chain-of-thought reasoning for driving, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.
Builds on
9 of 28 references.
References · 9
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
- 2024X-lifecycle Learning for Cloud Incident Management using LLMscited by 19
- 2021Disengagement Cause-and-Effect Relationships Extraction Using an NLP Pipelinecited by 3
- 2024Lessons from the Cruise Robotaxi Pedestrian Dragging Mishapcited by 3
- 2024Developing a Taxonomy of Elements Adversarial to Autonomous Vehiclescited by 2
- 2025Improving Crash Data Quality with Large Language Models: Evidence from Secondary Crash Narratives in Kentuckycited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025CrashAgent: Crash Scenario Generation via Multi-modal Reasoning
- 2026Human Behavior-Informed Crash Scenario Generation with Real-World Crash Priors for Autonomous Vehicle Safety Evaluation
- 2025From Narratives to Probabilistic Reasoning: Predicting and Interpreting Drivers' Hazardous Actions in Crashes Using Large Language Model
- 2025The Case for Negative Data: From Crash Reports to Counterfactuals for Reasonable Driving
- 2025SAFE: Harnessing LLM for Scenario-Driven ADS Testing from Multimodal Crash Data ↗
- 2025Evaluation of Safety Cognition Capability in Vision-Language Models for Autonomous Driving
- 2025Seeing before Observable: Potential Risk Reasoning in Autonomous Driving via Vision Language Models
- 2024Safety Implications of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in End-to-End Autonomous Driving