Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 52 references

Generating Traffic Scenarios via In-Context Learning to Learn Better Motion Planner

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes AutoSceneGen, a pipeline that uses an LLM's in-context learning to turn text descriptions into executable simulator scripts, producing rare safety-critical traffic scenarios cheaply and improving motion-planning…

desk verdict The framework engineering is reasonable and clearly described, but the central empirical claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 3, and Table 2 is a confounded comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18086 v2 pith:52IZ5YXD submitted 2024-12-24 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.GRcs.LG

Aizierjiang Aiersilan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CLcs.GRcs.LG
keywords trafficscenariogenerationin-contextlearninglargelanguagemodelsmotionplanningautonomousdrivingsynthetictrainingdatatrajectorypredictionCARLAsimulator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a large language model, given a few examples embedded in its prompt, can turn short text descriptions of traffic situations into executable simulator scripts, generating abundant safety-critical driving scenarios without manual annotation. This matters because curated real-world driving datasets are expensive to collect and rarely cover corner cases, leaving motion planners untested against uncommon events. The authors report that trajectory-prediction models trained on the resulting CARLA data, alone or mixed with real data, achieve lower average and final displacement errors than models trained on real data alone in several comparisons. The proposed pipeline, AutoSceneGen, combines a description filter, an API validator, and in-context learning exemplars to keep LLM output compatible with the simulator.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scenario script, a text-and-code representation of traffic logic that the CARLA simulator can execute. The machinery is AutoSceneGen's pipeline: a filter that replaces simulator-incompatible words, in-context learning exemplars that teach the LLM the simulator's API, a validator that repairs or removes unsupported API calls, and the CARLA simulator itself, which turns scripts into simulated trajectories. In-context learning is the ability of a language model to follow a new task from examples placed in the prompt at inference time; this is what lets a general LLM emit executable simulator code for rare scenarios without training or fine-tuning a generative model.

What would settle it

Train the same three models on AutoSceneGen data alone and on the corresponding real training set, then evaluate on the real test split: if the synthetic-only model's ADE/FDE is not close to the real-only model's, or if adding synthetic frames to real training raises error on any benchmark, the central claim fails. A direct check is to compare the empirical distributions of speed, acceleration, lane offset, and interaction frequency between AutoSceneGen frames and ApolloScapes or NGSIM frames.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that scenario logic can be captured as a script, and an LLM with in-context learning can generate that script from a natural-language description well enough for a physics-based simulator to produce diverse, safety-relevant traffic. Using GPT-4, the authors generated 125 scenario descriptions and collected thousands of trajectory frames, including vehicles and pedestrians, across CARLA maps. They then trained three trajectory-prediction models on the synthetic data, on real benchmarks such as ApolloScapes and NGSIM, and on both combined. In the comparisons they report, the synthetic data, especially when combined with real data, lowers displacement errors, which they take as evidence that LLM-generated scenarios are useful for training better motion planners.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that CARLA trajectories written from LLM scripts are similar enough to real road traffic that training on them transfers to real test sets; if the synthetic distribution is simpler or shifted, lower prediction errors on synthetic-heavy training are an artifact, not a real improvement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trajectory-prediction models can be trained on data generated from text descriptions, reducing reliance on hand-curated real-world datasets for routine scenarios.
  • Rare and safety-critical events, such as wrong-way drivers or vehicles with open doors, can be produced at scale, filling gaps in long-tail scenario coverage.
  • Mixing generated data with real data can lower prediction errors relative to real data alone, indicating that the synthetic distribution is complementary rather than redundant.
  • Because scenario descriptions are user-specified, dataset heterogeneity can be controlled at generation time without post-hoc annotation.
  • The framework is modular: swapping the LLM or the simulator changes what scenarios can be produced without retraining the generation model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same pipeline could be pointed inward: feeding dashcam footage through a vision-language model to produce the scenario description would close the loop from real-world observations to synthetic re-enactment, which the paper does not implement.
  • A distributional audit of generated versus real trajectories, comparing speed, acceleration, and lane-offset histograms, would make the sim-to-real transfer claim directly testable rather than inferred from final prediction errors.
  • Because the framework separates description from simulator, its diversity ceiling is set partly by the simulator's built-in stochasticity; sweeping one description across maps, weathers, and seed traffic would isolate how much diversity comes from the LLM script versus the simulator.
  • The reported results suggest the generated data acts most safely as a complement to real data, so an obvious extension is a per-scenario-type rule for deciding when to add synthetic frames and when to keep real ones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AutoSceneGen, a framework that uses LLM in-context learning to translate text descriptions of traffic scenarios into simulator-executable scripts, and then uses CARLA to collect synthetic trajectory data. The authors train existing trajectory predictors (TrafficPredict, TraPHic, Pishgu) on synthetic data, real-world data, and combinations thereof, reporting ADE/FDE/TAE on ApolloScapes, NGSIM, ETH/UCY, and VIRAT/ActEV. The abstract claims that motion planners trained on AutoSceneGen data 'significantly outperform those trained solely on real-world data.' The central evidence is Tables 2 and 3, with Table 2 showing large improvements on ApolloScapes and Table 3 showing mixed, often worse, results on other benchmarks.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the framework would offer a cost-effective complement to real-world data collection for safety-critical scenario generation. The ICL-based pipeline is clearly described, modular, and released with source code, and the filter/validator design for simulator compatibility is a practical strength. However, the experimental evaluation does not establish the claimed benefit: the headline comparison in Table 2 is confounded by training-set size and ambiguous test protocol, and Table 3 directly contradicts the abstract for NGSIM and VIRAT/ActEV. The potential significance is therefore not realized in the present submission.

major comments (3)
  1. [Evaluations, Table 3] The abstract's claim that 'motion planners trained with our data significantly outperform those trained solely on real-world data' is directly contradicted by Table 3. On NGSIM, training only on AutoSceneGen data yields ADE 7.98 and FDE 15.43, versus 0.88 and 1.96 for NGSIM real data, roughly a nine-fold degradation. On VIRAT/ActEV, synthetic-only training worsens ADE to 16.05 from 14.11, and combining synthetic with real data increases ADE to 15.32, again worse than real-only. The text acknowledges the NGSIM replacement is worse but still concludes that generated data 'outperforms in most cases'; this is not supported by the table. The paper must either remove the broad claim or provide evidence beyond the single ApolloScapes setting.
  2. [Evaluations, Table 2] The Table 2 comparison is not controlled. The caption states that the ApolloScapes official training set contains 94 examples, while AutoSceneGen generated 17,919 frames. Training on 17,919 synthetic frames versus 94 real frames confounds the effect of the generation method with training-set volume and distribution shift. Additionally, the text says both 'we tested exclusively with our own data' and 'replacing only the train set'; it is never specified whether the 'Ours' row is evaluated on AutoSceneGen test data or on the ApolloScapes test split. If the former, this is a synthetic-to-synthetic evaluation with no sim-to-real transfer; if the latter, a matched training-size baseline and explicit test protocol are required.
  3. [Evaluations, Tables 2 and 3] No error bars, random seeds, or statistical significance tests are reported for any metric. The conclusions rest on a single run per condition, despite the known variance in trajectory prediction training and the relatively small synthetic corpus (41 executed scenarios from 125 configurations). Furthermore, the paper does not report the success rate of the ICL-to-script generation, the number of invalid configurations, or the filtering/validation failure rates, so the claimed 'effectiveness of our data generation method' is not directly measured. These omissions make it impossible to determine whether any improvement is attributable to AutoSceneGen rather than to the simulator's simpler traffic distribution.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 3] The model name is spelled 'Pihgu' in Table 3 but 'Pishgu' in the text and references; please unify.
  2. [Table 2] The row labels 'A.S. train-set + Ours' and 'Ours' are ambiguous about whether evaluation is on ApolloScapes test data or on AutoSceneGen data; clarify in the caption and text.
  3. [Table 1] The AutoSceneGen column reports frames (×10^3) as 0.05, implying 50 frames, which is inconsistent with the 17,919 examples and the 1,848k/15,400k frame counts mentioned in the Evaluations section; reconcile these numbers.
  4. [Related Work] The citation 'TARGET (Deng et al. 2023)' has no corresponding entry in the References list.
  5. [In-Context Learning] The text refers to 'ChatGPT-3'; the correct model name is GPT-3.
  6. [Figure 3] The caption mentions 'all metrics' but only explicitly describes FDE-vehicle and ADE-vehicle; please label each subplot and describe what is shown.
  7. [Limitations] The limitations section does not discuss the fact that synthetic-only training failed on NGSIM or that combining synthetic data worsened VIRAT/ActEV results; this should be acknowledged given the paper's central claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scenario-generation pipeline has no fitted parameters and all comparisons are against external real-world benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that trajectories generated by an LLM-with-in-context-learning pipeline, executed in CARLA, can serve as useful training data for trajectory prediction models. There is no derivation chain in which an output quantity is constructed from the quantity it is supposed to predict. The pipeline components (filter, validator, simulator) translate text descriptions into executable simulator configurations; no parameter is fit to the evaluation datasets, and no claimed result is assumed during generation. The evaluation compares against external benchmarks (ApolloScapes, NGSIM, ETH/UCY, VIRAT/ActEV) using standard ADE/FDE metrics. The confounds noted in the review—unbalanced training-set sizes (17,919 synthetic frames vs 94 real ApolloScapes frames), ambiguity about whether the 'Ours' rows are tested on synthetic or real test splits, and Table 3's contradictory NGSIM result (ADE 7.98 vs 0.88)—are serious threats to the validity of the performance claim, but they are experimental-design problems rather than circularity: the reported numbers are not equal to the method's inputs by construction. There is also no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. Hence the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no numerical fitted parameters or new entities. Its three remaining assumptions are domain-level premises about LLM code generation, simulator realism, and the equivalence between trajectory prediction and motion planning. These assumptions are plausible but unvalidated in the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLMs with in-context learning can generate executable CARLA configuration scripts from natural language descriptions.
    The entire framework rests on this; the paper provides only anecdotal evidence (Figure 1) and no success rate or failure analysis.
  • domain assumption The CARLA simulator produces realistic and diverse traffic scenarios suitable for training real-world trajectory predictors.
    The validity of using synthetic data for training relies on this; the paper does not measure the sim-to-real gap.
  • domain assumption Trajectory prediction metrics (ADE/FDE) on real test sets are a valid proxy for motion planner quality.
    The paper says it trains 'motion planners' but evaluates trajectory prediction networks, which are not motion planners.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generating Traffic Scenarios via In-Context Learning to Learn Better Motion Planner." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52IZ5YXD

@misc{pith2026241218086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generating Traffic Scenarios via In-Context Learning to Learn Better Motion Planner},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52IZ5YXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18086}
}
read the original abstract

Motion planning is a crucial component in autonomous driving. State-of-the-art motion planners are trained on meticulously curated datasets, which are not only expensive to annotate but also insufficient in capturing rarely seen critical scenarios. Failing to account for such scenarios poses a significant risk to motion planners and may lead to incidents during testing. An intuitive solution is to manually compose such scenarios by programming and executing a simulator (e.g., CARLA). However, this approach incurs substantial human costs. Motivated by this, we propose an inexpensive method for generating diverse critical traffic scenarios to train more robust motion planners. First, we represent traffic scenarios as scripts, which are then used by the simulator to generate traffic scenarios. Next, we develop a method that accepts user-specified text descriptions, which a Large Language Model translates into scripts using in-context learning. The output scripts are sent to the simulator that produces the corresponding traffic scenarios. As our method can generate abundant safety-critical traffic scenarios, we use them as synthetic training data for motion planners. To demonstrate the value of generated scenarios, we train existing motion planners on our synthetic data, real-world datasets, and a combination of both. Our experiments show that motion planners trained with our data significantly outperform those trained solely on real-world data, showing the usefulness of our synthetic data and the effectiveness of our data generation method. Our source code is available at https://ezharjan.github.io/AutoSceneGen.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images captured at four distinct timestamps and locations, corresponding to the AutoSceneGen input scenario de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture Overview. It begins with the user inputting a scenario description, which is managed by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The comparison of all metrics between the datasets collected via AutoSceneGen (Blue), ApolloScapes (Orange), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Alam, M. S. 2020. Automatic generation of critical driving scenarios

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Alinezhad Noghre, G.; Katariya, V.; Danesh Pazho, A.; Neff, C.; and Tabkhi, H. 2023. Pishgu: Universal path prediction network architecture for real-time cyber-physical edge systems. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS-IoT Week 2023), 88--97

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Amersbach, C.; and Winner, H. 2019. Defining required and feasible test coverage for scenario-based validation of highly automated vehicles. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), 425--430. IEEE

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    TRECVID 2019: An Evaluation Campaign to Benchmark Video Activity Detection, Video Captioning and Matching, and Video Search & Retrieval

    Awad, G.; Butt, A. A.; Curtis, K.; Lee, Y.; Fiscus, J.; Godil, A.; Delgado, A.; et al. 2020. Trecvid 2019: An evaluation campaign to benchmark video activity detection, video captioning and matching, and video search & retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.09984

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Bock, J.; Krajewski, R.; Moers, T.; Runde, S.; Vater, L.; and Eckstein, L. 2020. The ind dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic road user trajectories at german intersections. In 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 1929--1934. IEEE

    work page 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Bogdoll, D.; Breitenstein, J.; Heidecker, F.; Bieshaar, M.; Sick, B.; Fingscheidt, T.; and Z \"o llner, M. 2021. Description of corner cases in automated driving: Goals and challenges. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 1023--1028

    2021

  2. [10]

    H.; Vora, S.; Liong, V

    Caesar, H.; Bankiti, V.; Lang, A. H.; Vora, S.; Liong, V. E.; Xu, Q.; Krishnan, A.; et al. 2020. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11621--11631

    2020

  3. [11]

    Chandra, R.; Bhattacharya, U.; Bera, A.; and Manocha, D. 2019. Traphic: Trajectory prediction in dense and heterogeneous traffic using weighted interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8483--8492

    2019

  4. [12]

    Chang, M.-F.; Lambert, J.; Sangkloy, P.; Singh, J.; Bak, S.; Hartnett, A.; Wang, D.; et al. 2019. Argoverse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 8748--8757

    2019

  5. [13]

    Dai, D.; Sun, Y.; Dong, L.; Hao, Y.; Ma, S.; Sui, Z.; and Wei, F. 2022. Why can gpt learn in-context? language models implicitly perform gradient descent as meta-optimizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10559

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Deng, Y.; Yao, J.; Tu, Z.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, M.; and Zhang, T. 2023. Target: Traffic rule-based test generation for autonomous driving systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06018

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ding, W.; Xu, C.; Arief, M.; Lin, H.; Li, B.; and Zhao, D. 2023. A survey on safety-critical driving scenario generation—A methodological perspective. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(7): 6971--6988

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Ros, G.; Codevilla, F.; Lopez, A.; and Koltun, V. 2017. CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. In Conference on robot learning, 1--16. PMLR

    2017

  9. [17]

    Ettinger, S.; Cheng, S.; Caine, B.; Liu, C.; Zhao, H.; Pradhan, S.; Chai, Y.; et al. 2021. Large scale interactive motion forecasting for autonomous driving: The waymo open motion dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 9710--9719

    2021

  10. [18]

    Feng, L.; Li, Q.; Peng, Z.; Tan, S.; and Zhou, B. 2023. Trafficgen: Learning to generate diverse and realistic traffic scenarios. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 3567--3575. IEEE

    2023

  11. [19]

    J.; Dreossi, T.; Ghosh, S.; Yue, X.; Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A

    Fremont, D. J.; Dreossi, T.; Ghosh, S.; Yue, X.; Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. L.; and Seshia, S. A. 2019. Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN conference on programming language design and implementation, 63--78

    2019

  12. [20]

    Geiger, A.; Lenz, P.; Stiller, C.; and Urtasun, R. 2013. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(11): 1231--1237

    2013

  13. [21]

    Go, K.; and Carroll, J. M. 2004. The blind men and the elephant. Interactions, 11(6): 44--53

    2004

  14. [22]

    Goyal, S.; Griggio, A.; Kimblad, J.; and Tonetta, S. 2023. Automatic Generation of Scenarios for System-level Simulation-based Verification of Autonomous Driving Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09784

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Huang, W.; Wang, K.; Lv, Y.; and Zhu, F. 2016. Autonomous vehicles testing methods review. In 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems ( ITSC ) . IEEE

    2016

  16. [24]

    Huang, X.; Cheng, X.; Geng, Q.; Cao, B.; Zhou, D.; Wang, P.; Lin, Y.; and Yang, R. 2018. The apolloscape dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 954--960

    2018

  17. [25]

    E.; Schiegg, F.; and Z \"o llner, J

    Jesenski, S.; Stellet, J. E.; Schiegg, F.; and Z \"o llner, J. M. 2019. Generation of scenes in intersections for the validation of highly automated driving functions. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 502--509. IEEE

    2019

  18. [26]

    Kalra, N.; and Paddock, S. M. 2016. Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94: 182--193

    2016

  19. [27]

    K \"o nig, L.; Heinzemann, C.; Griggio, A.; Klauck, M.; Cimatti, A.; Henze, F.; et al. 2024. Towards Safe Autonomous Driving: Model Checking a Behavior Planner during Development. In International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems,...

    2024

  20. [28]

    G.; Alexiadis, V.; and Zhang PE, L

    Kovvali, V. G.; Alexiadis, V.; and Zhang PE, L. 2007. Video-based vehicle trajectory data collection. Technical report, \_

    2007

  21. [29]

    Krajewski, R.; Bock, J.; Kloeker, L.; and Eckstein, L. 2018. The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems. In 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation syste...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Krajewski, R.; Moers, T.; Bock, J.; Vater, L.; and Eckstein, L. 2020. The round dataset: A drone dataset of road user trajectories at roundabouts in germany. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 1--6. IEEE

    2020

  23. [31]

    Lerner, A.; Chrysanthou, Y.; and Lischinski, D. 2007. Crowds by example. In Computer graphics forum, volume 26, 655--664. Wiley Online Library

    2007

  24. [32]

    Li, D.; Liu, B.; Huang, Z.; Hao, Q.; Zhao, D.; and Tian, B. 2023. Safe motion planning for autonomous vehicles by quantifying uncertainties of deep learning-enabled environment perception. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    2023

  25. [33]

    M.; Feng, L.; Liu, Z.; Duan, C.; Mo, W.; and Zhou, B

    Li, Q.; Peng, Z. M.; Feng, L.; Liu, Z.; Duan, C.; Mo, W.; and Zhou, B. 2024 a . Scenarionet: Open-source platform for large-scale traffic scenario simulation and modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36

    2024

  26. [34]

    Li, X.; Liu, E.; Shen, T.; Huang, J.; and Wang, F.-Y. 2024 b . ChatGPT-based scenario engineer: A new framework on scenario generation for trajectory prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ma, Y.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, S.; Yang, R.; Wang, W.; and Manocha, D. 2019. Trafficpredict: Trajectory prediction for heterogeneous traffic-agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, 6120--6127

    2019

  28. [36]

    Majzik, I.; Semerath, O.; Hajdu, C.; Marussy, K.; Szatmari, Z.; Micskei, Z.; et al. 2019. Towards system-level testing with coverage guarantees for autonomous vehicles. In 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems ( MODELS ) . IEEE

    2019

  29. [37]

    Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 1

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Min, S.; Lyu, X.; Holtzman, A.; Artetxe, M.; Lewis, M.; Hajishirzi, H.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    T.; ; et al

    Oh, S.; Hoogs, A.; Perera, A.; Cuntoor, N.; Chen, C.-C.; Lee, J. T.; ; et al. 2011. A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video. In CVPR 2011, 3153--3160. IEEE

    2011

  32. [40]

    Pellegrini, S.; Ess, A.; Schindler, K.; and Van Gool, L. 2009. You'll never walk alone: Modeling social behavior for multi-target tracking. In 2009 IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision, 261--268. IEEE

    2009

  33. [41]

    Shah, S.; Dey, D.; Lovett, C.; and Kapoor, A. 2018. AirSim : High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles. In Field and Service Robotics, 621--635. Cham: Springer International Publishing

    2018

  34. [42]

    C.; Mirje, M.; Bikkannavar, K

    Shet, R.; Iyer, N. C.; Mirje, M.; Bikkannavar, K. V.; and Rokhade, S. 2023. Path Planning of Autonomous Vehicle for Real World Scenario Using CARLA. In International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies, 81--92. Springer

    2023

  35. [43]

    Sun, H.; Feng, S.; Yan, X.; and Liu, H. X. 2021. Corner case generation and analysis for safety assessment of autonomous vehicles. Transportation research record, 2675(11): 587--600

    2021

  36. [44]

    Sun, S.; Gu, Z.; Sun, T.; Sun, J.; Yuan, C.; Han, Y.; Li, D.; and Ang, M. H. 2024. Drivescenegen: Generating diverse and realistic driving scenarios from scratch. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2024

  37. [45]

    Tan, S.; Ivanovic, B.; Weng, X.; Pavone, M.; and Kraehenbuehl, P. 2023. Language Conditioned Traffic Generation. In Conference on Robot Learning, 2714--2752. PMLR

    2023

  38. [46]

    Webson, A.; and Pavlick, E. 2021. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01247

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wilson, B.; Qi, W.; Agarwal, T.; Lambert, J.; Singh, J.; Khandelwal, S.; Pan, B.; et al. 2023. Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00493

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Wu, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhou, S.; Duan, J.; Hua, G.; and Tang, W. 2023. Multi-stream representation learning for pedestrian trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 2875--2882

    2023

  41. [49]

    Xinxin, Z.; Fei, L.; and Xiangbin, W. 2020. Csg: Critical scenario generation from real traffic accidents. In 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 1330--1336. IEEE

    2020

  42. [50]

    J.; Luo, X.; and Wang, M

    Yu, Y.; Liu, S.; Jin, P. J.; Luo, X.; and Wang, M. 2020. Multi-player dynamic game-based automatic lane-changing decision model under mixed autonomous vehicle and human-driven vehicle environment. Transportation research record, 2674(11): 165--183

    2020

  43. [51]

    Zhang, X.; Tao, J.; Tan, K.; T \"o rngren, M.; S \'a nchez, J. M. G.; et al. 2023. Finding critical scenarios for automated driving systems: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 49(3): 991--1026

    2023

  44. [52]

    Zhang, Z.; Zhang, A.; Li, M.; and Smola, A. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.