DrivingBench is the first benchmark that tests general‑purpose vision‑language models on the task of driving a real Toyota Corolla around a parking‑lot cone course. The models receive live camera frames and issue steering and velocity commands, with inference latency counted as part of the challenge. In tests, only GPT‑6 Astra completed the course, while other models showed limited progress or failed to pass half the course.
arXiv:2512. 05277v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as the perception and reasoning backbone of autonomous agents acting in the wild, with autonomous driving (AD) being one of the most safety-critical instances.
arXiv:2512. 05277v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as the perception and reasoning backbone of autonomous agents acting in the wild, with autonomous driving (AD) being one of the most safety-critical instances.
arXiv:2607. 15621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models bring instruction following and scene reasoning to end-to-end driving, but their inference latency collides with the control rate a vehicle requires.
The paper introduces Latent Action Driving Annotations (LADA), a three‑stage pipeline that converts large amounts of unlabelled observation‑trajectory data into a language‑conditioned driving model. First, a latent action model with a vector‑quantised bottleneck learns a compact codebook of vehicle intents. Then, a small set of language‑annotated examples trains a vision‑language translator to map observations and instructions into this codebook, and finally a VLA is trained on observation‑latent‑action pairs across the full corpus. Using less than 5% of language annotations, LADA attains a Driving Score of 87.98 and a Success Rate of 70.46% on Bench2Drive, matching or surpassing fully supervised baselines.
The paper evaluates five vision‑language models on autonomous driving tasks under various visual input conditions, finding that visual corruption affects accuracy and confidence differently across models and datasets. It then tests Visual Evidence Augmentation (VEA) as an inference‑time technique to enhance reliability, observing mixed improvements depending on the model and setting.
arXiv:2609.22762v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative world-action models (WAMs) jointly generate future video and vehicle actions, while their action branches remain primarily optimized by expe...
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...
arXiv:2606.08684v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present BLUE, a minimal method for better language use in vision-language-action (VLA) models for autonomous driving (AD). Through extensive ana...
Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) used in autonomous driving are evaluated on their ability to understand velocity through three tasks: surrounding‑agent speed, current ego speed, and short‑horizon future ego‑speed. Experiments on nuScenes show that while current ego speed can be accessed internally, verbal outputs are poor and surrounding‑agent speed is weakly encoded; temporal cues and frame order are largely ignored. Specialized driving models (Alpamayo‑1.5) improve latent speed representations but still leave gaps between internal knowledge and verbal readout, indicating that good planning outputs do not guarantee reliable dynamic state recovery.
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:2606. 07366v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self-driving simulations typically rely on data collected in a small number of cities or on hand-authored synthetic scenarios.
arXiv:2609.13308v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A companion evaluation found that naming the target part in a manipulation prompt increased action accuracy by 0.32-0.63 across eight vision-language...