The paper introduces CPW-Drive, a retrieval-augmented generation framework that embeds Chinese philosophical values into autonomous driving decision-making. It extracts keywords from Confucian texts, validates them into driving-relevant principles, and retrieves scenario-specific cases using Physics-aware Spatial Similarity Retrieval. On Highway-env, CPW-Drive outperforms baselines, achieving higher success rates, more collision-free steps, and lower lane-change frequency.
arXiv:2606. 29548v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Driver decision making in the dilemma zone at signalized intersections is safety critical, as vehicles approaching a yellow signal must decide whether to stop or proceed within limited time and distance margins.
arXiv:2607. 07103v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safe autonomous driving requires both rapid responses to common high-risk events and deeper reasoning over rare, extreme long-tail scenarios in traffic safety.
Safe autonomous driving requires both rapid responses to common high-risk events and deeper reasoning over rare, extreme long-tail scenarios in traffic safety. These scenarios are severely under-represented in naturalistic driving data, and existing trajectory and language-augmented datasets seldom provide high-risk event labels, semantic annotations, and verifiable safety signals.
arXiv:2606. 17362v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous driving has shifted towards end-to-end policy learning, where reliable, interpretable policy evaluation is a fundamental challenge as driving quality is highly context-dependent.
arXiv:2603. 18315v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Traditional reinforcement learning (RL) methods rely on manually engineered rewards or sparse collision signals, which fail to capture the rich contextual understanding required for safe driving and make unsafe exploration unavoidable in real-world settings.
CAR‑VLA is a Vision‑Language‑Action model for autonomous driving that jointly considers scene complexity and dynamic risk to determine reasoning depth, urgency, and focus. It maps four complexity‑risk categories to three reasoning modes—Fast Intuition, Slow Thinking, and Reflex Response—each tailored to different driving scenarios. The model is trained via progressive supervised learning and reinforcement learning, achieving competitive performance on NAVSIM and Navhard benchmarks and demonstrating risk‑aware reasoning in high‑risk scenarios.
arXiv:2601.01762v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Practical autonomous driving requires models that generalize by reasoning through spatial-temporal possibilities to exclude unsafe outcomes....
arXiv:2609.38028v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous vehicles interacting with passengers through natural language must reason beyond immediate commands. Passenger intent may span multiple st...
arXiv:2610.02765v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Monitoring planned driving trajectories requires accurately estimating the collision likelihood with actors whose motion is itself impacted by the eg...
arXiv:2606. 00857v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate and reliable vehicle trajectory prediction is essential for safe autonomous driving.
arXiv:2607. 03182v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous driving planning requires translating navigation intent, traffic rules, dynamic interactions, and language instructions into executable continuous trajectories.
arXiv:2601. 21288v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous driving is an important and safety-critical task, and recent advances in LLMs/VLMs have opened new possibilities for reasoning and planning in this domain.