arXiv:2607. 14543v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as the reasoning backbone of embodied agents, enabling robots to interpret visual scenes, follow language instructions, and plan multi-step actions.
By Huaigang Yang, Ya Li, Min Ren, Bo Dai, Zhenliang Zhang, Zhaofeng He
arXiv:2511. 14592v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) show great promise for autonomous driving, but their suitability for safety-critical scenarios is largely unexplored, raising safety concerns.
By Xianhui Meng, Yuchen Zhang, Zhijian Huang, Zheng Lu, Ziling Ji, Yandan Lin, Yaoyao Yin, Hongyuan Zhang, Wei Zhou, Guangfeng Jiang, Li Zhang, Long Chen, Hangjun Ye, Jun Liu, Xiaoshuai Hao
arXiv:2606. 29115v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are increasingly deployed in urban environments, yet their safety frameworks remain primarily designed around collision avoidance and minimal risk condition (MRC) behaviors such as slowing or stopping when uncertainty arises.
By Yash Tandon, Giovanni Tapia Lopez, Marcus Blennemann, Mohan Trivedi, Ross Greer
arXiv:2609.35916v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Real-world embodied agents often pursue independent objectives within a shared physical environment, where their actions can alter the conditions fac...
By Jie Yang, Jiajun Chen, Jiazheng Zhou, Mianqiu Huang, Yining Zheng, Yuxin Wang, Xipeng Qiu
PRISM (Proactive Risk Intelligence and Safety Management) is an agentic multi-model architecture designed to shift autonomous transportation safety from reactive crash avoidance to proactive, continuous risk management. It uses inverse crash‑probability modeling to transform binary crash classifiers into dynamic safety scores, and runs three specialized models—trajectory kinematics, environmental risk, and VRU interaction—coordinated by a reinforcement‑learning reasoning layer. Across 1,296 naturalistic driving scenarios, PRISM achieved a mean safety score of 68/100, classified 77.6% of situations as advisory, and flagged 3.8% as near‑misses, with 11% requiring intervention or emergency response, highlighting trajectory risk and VRU proximity as key safety factors.
By Joyjit Roy, Samaresh Kumar Singh, Sushanta Das
ReactHuman is a physics‑grounded benchmark that tests whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can make immediate, safety‑critical decisions in simulated humanoid scenarios involving sudden household hazards. The benchmark includes 17 event families, over 1,000 reproducible scenes generated from 240 Hz rigid‑body simulation, and a five‑metric suite evaluating reactions on reasonableness, safety, and physical grounding. Evaluation of seven MLLMs reveals that reactive safety remains unsolved, with models frequently mishandling hazards, relying on appearance over motion, and missing key interception points.
By Yizhan Li, Jianxin You, Mengyang Xiong, Yinhuan Chen, Zicheng Zhao, Dekun Wu, Dongqing Zhang, Bang Liu
arXiv:2408.15538v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: While modern Autonomous Vehicle (AV) systems can develop reliable driving policies under regular traffic conditions, they frequently struggle with...
By Guanren Qiao, Guorui Quan, Jiawei Yu, Shujun Jia, Guiliang Liu
arXiv:2607. 16247v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have empowered embodied agents to execute complex household tasks, they struggle to proactively handle dynamically emerging hazards during closed-loop interactions.
By Bingrui Sima, Lizhong Wang, Xiaoya Lu, Kun He, Xiao Yang
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.
By Zilin Huang, Zihao Sheng, Zhengyang Wan, Yansong Qu, Junwei You, Sicong Jiang, Sikai Chen
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.
By Xiaolei Chen, Zhuolin He, Yuxuan Liang, Xu Li, Haotian Chen, Fan Shi, Mengyang Zhao, Wenjuan Meng, Zisheng Chen, Zhihao Zhu, Zhounan Jin, Hengli Wang, Qingfan Wang, Jiamei Liang, Bin Li, Xiangyang Xue
arXiv:2608. 10403v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promising performance in autonomous driving, yet ensuring the safety of online RL policies remains challenging due to insufficient exposure to safety-critical driving scenes.
By Xincong Hu (Nanjing University), Lei Ou (Nanjing University), Maosen Li (Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd), Jingtao Zhang (Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd), Liguo Hou (Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd), Zongzhang Zhang (Nanjing University)
arXiv:2606. 06423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety-critical traffic scenario generation is essential for evaluating autonomous driving systems under rare but high-risk interactions.
By Qi Lan, Yining Tang, Yu Shen, Yi Zhou, Yuhao Wei, Jie Li, Guofa Li