arXiv:2609.15169v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Driving vision-language-action (VLA) models increasingly reason before acting, but their intermediate reasoning is often weakly grounded in physical sc...
By Xiao Liu, Haoyu Li, Jianghao Leng, Lin Wang, Chao Sun
The paper surveys the transition from textual chain-of-thought reasoning to action-grounded reasoning in autonomous driving, highlighting that driving decisions require continuous actions that mirror the spatiotemporal structure of the physical world. It reviews 171 papers, categorizing 130 methods into four main types—language-based, visual-spatial, latent-dynamic, and externalized reasoning—along with 13 subtypes linked to specific regions of interest. The authors argue that the future of driving agent reasoning lies in intermediate representations that are grounded in reality, linked to real-time actions, and verifiable within safety-critical systems.
By Zhengxu Tang, Xiaozhou Zhang, Guofeng Cui, Ziyu Gong, Zi Wang, Yunfei Shi, Ruifeng Deng, Chengzhi Qi, Ke Chen, Sachin Patil, Tianjun Xiao, Langechuan Liu, Pichao Wang
arXiv:2609. 28366v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) offer a promising approach to long-tail autonomous driving, but existing driving datasets provide limited supervision for connecting decision-critical visual evidence with reasoning and planning.
By Zhipeng Bao, Wenjie Zhao, Tianle Zhu, Haohua Que, Chence Yang, Geng Yuan, Qianwen Li
arXiv:2610.00601v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Reasoning-enabled VLA policies expose chain-of-thought (CoT) traces that appear to explain and guide their actions, creating a potential interface fo...
By Sathwik Karnik, Joseph JR. Lee, Aryaman Gupta, Somil Bansal
arXiv:2606. 27926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Geometry Problem Solving have increasingly adopt the neuro-symbolic paradigm, combining neural intuition with symbolic rigor.
By Can Li, Ting Zhang, Junbo Zhao, Hua Huang
arXiv:2607. 04681v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Embodied Chain-of-Thought has emerged as a promising mechanism to enhance robot decision-making and interpretability in black-box Vision-Language Action (VLA) models.
By Matthew Foutter, Matteo Cercola, Lena Wild, Yunshan Wang, Michelle Li, Daniele Gammelli, Marco Pavone
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:2606. 01810v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current benchmarks for embodied vision-language planning often favor linguistic next-token prediction over physically grounded next-state reasoning.
By Zheng Lu, Mingqi Gao, Qinlei Xie, Wanqi Zhong, Hanwen Cui, Heng Cao, Zirui Song, Yifan Yang, Chong Luo, Bei Liu, Yiming Li
arXiv:2608. 10976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models can connect scene understanding, semantic reasoning, and trajectory generation for autonomous driving.
By Foundation Model Team, XPeng Inc
arXiv:2608. 20237v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) combine linguistic reasoning with visual perception, yet their ability to perform visual spatial planning under explicit or previously unseen rule constraints remains underexplored.
By Yu Chen, Ting Lei, Yaoyi Li, Jia Cai, Zhecen Wu, Yang Liu
arXiv:2608. 01755v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models for autonomous driving (AD) increasingly utilize chain-of-thought (CoT) supervision to enhance the reasoning capabilities of their Vision-Language Model (VLM) components, yet existing annotation pipelines commonly expose the teacher model to the logged ground-truth (GT) future trajectory.
By Zixuan Huang, Yang Zhou, Kaixuan Wang, Guli Zhang, Hongyan Xie, Yakun Zhu, Hao Geng, Xiaozhi Chen, Yikun Ban, Deqing Wang
The paper argues that current embodied vision‑language planning benchmarks favor linguistic next‑token prediction over physically grounded next‑state reasoning, leading models to rely on language priors rather than true causal dependencies. To address this, the authors introduce Causal‑Plan‑Bench, a diagnostic suite covering four causal dimensions, and Causal‑Plan‑1M, a million‑scale corpus of explicit causal reasoning traces extracted from egocentric videos. Extensive experiments show that existing models perform poorly on these tasks, while a new model trained with a tailored recipe—Causal Planner based on Qwen3‑VL‑8B—achieves significant gains, demonstrating the feasibility of physically grounded causal reasoning.
By Zheng Lu, Mingqi Gao, Qinlei Xie, Wanqi Zhong, Hanwen Cui, Zirui Song, Lijie Wang, Chong Luo, Bei Liu, Yiming Li