Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

CoopReflect: Towards Natural Language Communication for Cooperative Autonomous Driving via Multi-Agent Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Post-episode debriefing teaches LLM driving agents to coordinate in natural language, cutting collision rates from over 90 percent to near zero in several scenarios.

desk verdict Genuinely new problem setup for NL V2V communication with a solid proof-of-concept, but the knowledge-reset protocol inflates absolute success rates and the paper needs first-attempt numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18334 v2 pith:HHFBZCV5 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.RO cs.AIcs.MA

Jiaxun Cui , Chen Tang , Jarrett Holtz , Janice Nguyen , Alessandro G. Allievi , Hang Qiu , Peter Stone This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.MA
keywords multi-agentcommunicationLLMagentautonomousdrivingcooperativeself-playnaturallanguagevehicle-to-vehicledebriefingclosed-loopsimulation
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's method, named LLM+DEBRIEF in the text, is a self-play learning framework that lets LLM-based driving agents learn a natural-language vehicle-to-vehicle communication protocol through trial and error. The authors argue that zero-shot chain-of-thought agents cannot coordinate by chatting; in the starkest scenario they collide in over 90 percent of episodes and succeed in almost none. After each failed episode the agents debrief together, and the distilled knowledge and cooperative strategy are injected into their prompts for the next attempt. On the paper's reported numbers this brings success rates above 90 percent in most of the six simulated traffic scenarios while cutting collision rates to near zero. The broader point is that human-understandable language, not a learned latent code, could serve as the coordination channel between autonomous vehicles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is LLM+DEBRIEF's post-episode debriefing loop. After a failed episode, the environment supplies scalar rewards and verbal feedback, and each agent's replay buffer is relabelled with hindsight metadata such as time-to-collision and stagnation details. A heuristic sampler over-weights transitions near collisions, stagnation, and dense multi-agent interaction. The agents then hold a turn-based discussion in which one proposes a joint cooperative strategy, the others critique and revise it, and each agent summarizes the outcome into two in-context prompt components: personal knowledge and a cooperative strategy. On the next episode these prompts shape both what the agent broadcasts and how it responds to incoming messages, turning centralized discussion into decentralized execution.

What would settle it

Run the six scenarios with realistic perception errors injected into the English captions—misreported distances, missed vehicles, contradictory messages—while keeping the debriefing loop unchanged, and compare success rates. If performance falls back to zero-shot levels, the claimed cooperation gain is an artifact of the idealized text-observation assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that LLM driving agents can learn stable, human-understandable cooperation through post-episode centralized debriefing. In their closed-loop simulator, agents that reason step-by-step and chat zero-shot fail to coordinate: in perception-overtake the zero-shot communicating policy collides in 91.1 percent of evaluation episodes and succeeds in 4.4 percent. After up to 60 self-play episodes with debriefing, the same kind of agent collides in 1.1 percent of episodes and succeeds in 94.4 percent, with similar gains across the other scenarios and 93.3 percent success in the highway-merge negotiation. The authors also show that the debriefed behavior can be distilled into one compact language-model policy that makes decisions in 100 to 470 milliseconds and generalizes across all six scenarios, sometimes beating its teacher. They are explicit that this is a proof of concept that assumes idealized text observations of simulator ground truth.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rule-based captioner converts simulator ground truth into accurate, complete, and noise-free English descriptions; if real perception is noisy, delayed, or ambiguous, the learned communication protocols may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Natural-language V2V coordination can be learned in simulation from scratch, without human-labeled driving dialogue or real-world data collection.
  • Communication without a learned strategy can hinder rather than help, because chatty zero-shot agents often fail to act on the messages they exchange.
  • Effective protocols may simplify into terse, unambiguous tokens such as "hold" and "go," making machine-to-machine messages cheap and easy to verify.
  • A single distilled policy can replace per-scenario policies and approach the 500 millisecond control cycle, making near-real-time deployment conceivable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the debriefing loop is run with noisy captions and the "hold"/"go" protocols still hold, the method becomes a candidate for real sensor pipelines; this is a direct test the paper does not run.
  • The negotiation scenarios rely on a turn-based, mediator-managed communication schedule; testing free-form simultaneous speech would separate the contribution of the learning method from the contribution of the communication protocol itself.
  • Constraining message length and vocabulary after learning could make the same learned protocols usable by human drivers, but the paper defers any human evaluation.
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 the Talking Vehicles problem, in which autonomous vehicles coordinate through natural-language vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) messages, and proposes LLM+DEBRIEF, a multi-agent learning framework that refines LLM driving agents' communication and decision policies through centralized post-episode debriefing. The authors contribute TalkingVehiclesGym, a CARLA-based closed-loop simulation environment with cooperative perception and negotiation scenarios, and report that LLM+DEBRIEF substantially reduces collision rates and increases success rates relative to zero-shot, reflection, and retrieval-augmented baselines, while also demonstrating cross-scenario generalization through centralized memory and distillation into a small language model.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are trustworthy, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that natural-language messages can serve as a learnable coordination protocol in closed-loop multi-agent driving, a step toward human-understandable V2V communication. The released code and videos, the closed-loop CARLA evaluation, and the distillation to a near-real-time policy are concrete assets. The main empirical gains are large and consistent in several scenarios, but the evaluation protocol contains a knowledge-reset selection rule that can inflate absolute success rates, and the generalization section has unresolved inconsistencies and a potential train/test leakage ambiguity. These issues need to be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.1 and Section 5 (Experimental Setup)] The knowledge-reset protocol allows each learning method up to three knowledge resets and then reports either the 'solved' result or the last run per seed, a rule the paper itself likens to best-of-N sampling. Because Tables 1 and 2 are the primary evidence for the central claim of stable collaboration, this selection can materially inflate absolute success rates: if a method succeeds with probability p on a single attempt, the probability of observing at least one successful attempt in three independent runs is 1-(1-p)^3. I request a first-attempt (no-reset) evaluation for every method and seed, a per-attempt breakdown of the reported numbers, and the number of resets used per seed. Without this, the absolute success rates in Tables 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as the typical performance of LLM+DEBRIEF.
  2. [Table 4 and Section 5.2] The 'Debrief (per-scenario)' rows in Table 4 do not match the corresponding '+Debrief' rows in Tables 1 and 2 for the same scenarios. For example, Overtake (Negotiation) success rate is 95.6±3.8 in Table 2 but 87.2±3.9 in Table 4, and Highway Merge is 93.3±11.5 in Table 2 but 97.8±2.2 in Table 4. Since Table 4 uses these numbers as the teacher baseline for the claim that distillation sometimes surpasses the teacher, the discrepancy must be explained (different seeds, different checkpoint selection, or different evaluation episodes), and the comparison should be made against the same policy whose performance is reported in Tables 1 and 2.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Appendix A.3] The distillation dataset is described as 'aggregated from all successful evaluation episodes across scenarios.' If these are the same evaluation episodes used to compute the generalization results in Table 4, then the comparison is affected by training on the test distribution. Please clarify whether the distillation demonstrations were collected in separate teacher rollouts that were held out from the final evaluation; if not, re-run the distillation evaluation on episodes that were not used to build the imitation dataset.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3, Observation Space] The sentence 'the message dialog is included as part of ther observation' contains a typo; it should read 'part of their observation.'
  2. [Algorithm 1] The variable 'cooperation_stategy' should be 'cooperation_strategy', and the final line 'last{π i,j} during the last iteration of self-play' is incomplete and should be rewritten for clarity.
  3. [Tables 3 and 5] Message size units are inconsistent: Table 3 reports 'Mb' while Table 5 reports bytes, and Section 5.1 states bytes. Please use one unit throughout and define whether 'Mb' means megabits or megabytes.
  4. [Figure 4] The prompt in Figure 4 instructs the model to return only a 'command' field, but the example agent response includes a 'message' field; please reconcile the prompt with the actual expected output format or annotate the figure as illustrative.
  5. [Abstract and title] The arXiv title and abstract use 'CoopReflect' while the main text names the method LLM+DEBRIEF; please align the terminology throughout.
  6. [Section 5.1] The paper does not report significance tests or confidence intervals for Tables 1 and 2; given the overlapping standard deviations in several rows (e.g., Highway Exit in Table 2), a paired comparison or effect-size estimate would strengthen the claims.
  7. [Section 8] The idealized-perception assumption is acknowledged in Section 8, but it should also be stated prominently as a core assumption in Section 3 and in the abstract, since all results are conditional on noise-free, complete textual captions from the rule-based captioner.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; LLM+DEBRIEF's learning signal is external environment feedback, and the best-of-N reset is a methodological caveat, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—learning communication and control knowledge through post-episode debriefing—is not circular. The knowledge and cooperative strategies (Ki, Si) are generated from environment feedback (collisions, stagnation, verbal feedback) and then used as in-context prompts; the reported success rates are evaluated by external CARLA simulation outcomes, not by the messages or strategies themselves. The best-of-N knowledge reset in Appendix A.1 is explicitly acknowledged by the authors as resembling best-of-N sampling evaluation, but this is a selection/evaluation-protocol caveat rather than a circular step: all LLM baselines receive the same reset budget, and the success rates are not definitionally forced by the reset rule. The idealized-perception limitation in Section 8 is a real scope restriction but applies equally to all methods and does not make the learning loop self-referential. The distillation procedure in Section 5.2 and Appendix A.3 trains on successful episodes from the same scenarios, which is a train/evaluation distribution-overlap concern, but it is not a derivation that reduces to its inputs and it does not affect the main Tables 1/2 comparisons. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used; the cited prior work is comparative background, and the method's performance is grounded in external environment feedback rather than in the definitions of the method itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions (truthful communication, scripted background agents, oracle text perception, CARLA fidelity) and on hand-chosen hyperparameters (batch sampling weights, debriefing rounds, knowledge reset limit). No new physical entities are postulated. The LLM's ability to self-generate strategies from transcripts is an unverified capability assumption, and the knowledge reset acts as a selection mechanism rather than a fitted parameter.

free parameters (6)
  • Batch context sampling weights = 1, 2, 5, 10, 0.1, 2
    Equation 1 assigns heuristic weights to prioritize transitions near collisions, stagnation, and interactions; these are chosen by hand and determine which experiences are replayed in debriefing.
  • Message dialog age window = 2 seconds
    Appendix A.1 states that received messages are kept for a 2-second window; this bounds the dialogue context the LLM sees at each decision step.
  • Debriefing rounds = 1 round plus final reflection
    The method uses N=1 round of centralized discussion per episode followed by individual reflection (Appendix A.1); the strategy quality may depend on this choice.
  • Batch size for context sampling = 4 transitions
    Only 4 keyframes are sampled per agent per debrief session (Appendix A.1); larger batches would give more context but add cost.
  • Knowledge reset limit = 3 resets
    Agents may clear acquired knowledge up to three times before the solved criterion or the last run; this is a best-of-N selection mechanism that affects reported performance.
  • Policy temperature = 0.2
    Set for the LLM agent action sampling (Appendix A.1) and for the distilled model inference (Appendix A.3); the value affects determinism and could influence success rates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rule-based captioner produces faithful text from simulator state
    Section 3 converts CARLA state into natural-language observations; if captions were inaccurate, the evaluation would not reflect real driving perception.
  • domain assumption Agents communicate truthfully and reliably
    Section 8 states the assumption that agents convey truthful intentions; adversarial or delayed messages are out of scope.
  • domain assumption Focal agents are cooperative and aim to maximize social welfare
    Section 2 frames the objective as the joint reward of the focal population; non-cooperative or self-interested agents are not modeled.
  • domain assumption Background vehicles follow pre-scripted behaviors
    Section 3 treats background agents as uncontrollable elements with scripted policies; they do not adapt to the focal agents, simplifying coordination.
  • domain assumption CARLA dynamics approximate real driving physics and traffic
    The environment is CARLA-based; any sim-to-real gap in vehicle dynamics, sensor noise, or traffic behavior is not addressed.
  • ad hoc to paper LLMs used (gpt-4o-mini, gpt-4o) can propose valid cooperation strategies from transcripts
    The debriefing mechanism depends on the LLM's ability to analyze its own failures and generate a correct plan; without this capability the method fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoopReflect: Towards Natural Language Communication for Cooperative Autonomous Driving via Multi-Agent Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHFBZCV5

@misc{pith2026250518334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoopReflect: Towards Natural Language Communication for Cooperative Autonomous Driving via Multi-Agent Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHFBZCV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18334}
}
read the original abstract

Past work has demonstrated that autonomous vehicles can drive more safely if they communicate with each other. However, this communication is usually not human-understandable. Using natural language as a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication protocol offers the potential for autonomous vehicles to drive cooperatively not only with each other but also with human drivers. To explore the potential use of natural language for V2V communication, we develop LLM-based driving agents and study their interactions in a new simulation environment, TalkingVehiclesGym, which features traffic scenarios where communication can potentially help avoid imminent collisions and/or support efficient traffic flow. While LLM agents relying solely on chain-of-thought reasoning struggle to coordinate effectively, we introduce CoopReflect, a multi-agent learning framework that equips agents with knowledge for both natural language message generation and high-level decision-making through trial and error and multi-agent debriefing. Experiments show that CoopReflect produces more meaningful and human-understandable messages than existing baselines, enabling stronger cooperation. Finally, we distill scenario-specific knowledge into a unified language model policy, achieving cross-scenario generalization and substantially reducing decision-making latency. Our code and demo videos are available at https://talking-vehicles.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Scenarios and Agent Roles. Green circles: Focal agents, agents aim at establishing coordination through communication; Red circles: Potential colliders; Blue circles: Background agents. Scenarios (P) and Rewards (R). TalkingVehiclesGym has been set up with several accident-prone scenarios where multi-agent communication could be beneficial, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LLM+DEBRIEF Agent Framework and Agent Learning Pipeline. 4.1 Agent Policy An agent acts according to an LLM policy πi(Oi , {Mj}j∈F ) → ⟨Mi , Ci⟩, where the distribution over actions follows the LLM used by the agent. Here, Oi represents a comprehensive text observation encompassing task and goal descriptions, environment details, and common traffic rules, expressed as a text sequence (prompt) {t o i }. A received me… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TalkingVehiclesGym Simulation framework. An agent is defined within the scenario and has a specific sensor registration and action space. A policy takes observations from an agent, computes actions, and learn from the experience replay buffer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example Agent Prompting Flow. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLM-Powered Virtual Patient Agents for Interactive Clinical Skills Training with Automated Feedback

    cs.HC 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The stated central claim, an LLM-powered virtual-patient OSCE trainer with automated feedback, has no supporting content in the full text, which is an unrelated IoT automation paper.

  2. Research Challenges and Progress in the End-to-End V2X Cooperative Autonomous Driving Competition

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    This paper summarizes the CVPR 2025 V2X cooperative driving challenge, its winning solutions, and the open research problems it reveals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dinneweth, A

    J. Dinneweth, A. Boubezoul, R. Mandiau, and S. Espié. Multi-agent reinforcement learning for autonomous vehicles: A survey.Autonomous Intelligent Systems, 2(1):27, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Antonio and C

    G.-P. Antonio and C. Maria-Dolores. Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning to manage connected autonomous vehicles at tomorrow’s intersections.IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 71(7):7033–7043, 2022. doi:10.1109/TVT.2022.3169907

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    T.-H. Wang, S. Manivasagam, M. Liang, B. Yang, W. Zeng, and R. Urtasun. V2vnet: Vehicle- to-vehicle communication for joint perception and prediction. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 605–621. Springer, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    J. Cui, H. Qiu, D. Chen, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu. Coopernaut: end-to-end driving with cooperative perception for networked vehicles. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17252–17262, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    R. Xu, H. Xiang, X. Xia, X. Han, J. Li, and J. Ma. Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to-vehicle communication. In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2583–2589. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Lingo-1: Exploring natural language for autonomous driving

    Wayve. Lingo-1: Exploring natural language for autonomous driving. 2023. URL https: //wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-autonomous-driving/

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Y . Ma, Y . Cao, J. Sun, M. Pavone, and C. Xiao. Dolphins: Multimodal language model for driving, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Deruyttere, D

    T. Deruyttere, D. Grujicic, M. B. Blaschko, and M.-F. Moens. Talk2car: Predicting physical trajectories for natural language commands.Ieee Access, 10:123809–123834, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    J. Kim, A. Rohrbach, T. Darrell, J. Canny, and Z. Akata. Textual explanations for self-driving vehicles.Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    J. Kim, T. Misu, Y .-T. Chen, A. Tawari, and J. Canny. Grounding human-to-vehicle advice for self-driving vehicles. InThe IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    T. Qian, J. Chen, L. Zhuo, Y . Jiao, and Y .-G. Jiang. Nuscenes-qa: A multi-modal visual question answering benchmark for autonomous driving scenario.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14836, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. Sima, K. Renz, K. Chitta, L. Chen, H. Zhang, C. Xie, P. Luo, A. Geiger, and H. Li. Drivelm: Driving with graph visual question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14150, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. P. Agapiou, A. S. Vezhnevets, E. A. Duéñez-Guzmán, J. Matyas, Y . Mao, P. Sunehag, R. Köster, U. Madhushani, K. Kopparapu, R. Comanescu, et al. Melting pot 2.0.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13746, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dosovitskiy, G

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun. Carla: An open urban driving simulator. InConference on robot learning, pages 1–16. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    D. S. Bernstein, R. Givan, N. Immerman, and S. Zilberstein. The complexity of decentralized control of markov decision processes.Mathematics of operations research, 27(4):819–840, 2002. 10

    2002

  9. [17]

    L. Wen, D. Fu, X. Li, X. Cai, T. Ma, P. Cai, M. Dou, B. Shi, L. He, and Y . Qiao. Dilu: A knowledge-driven approach to autonomous driving with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16292, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. Hu, Z. Fang, Z. Fang, X. Chen, and Y . Fang. Agentscodriver: Large language model empowered collaborative driving with lifelong learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06345, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    V . Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, and T. Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. InNeurIPS EMC2 Workshop, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. InProceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artifi- cial intelligence and statistics, pages 627–635. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proce...

    2011

  14. [22]

    L. Wen, X. Yang, D. Fu, X. Wang, P. Cai, X. Li, T. Ma, Y . Li, L. Xu, D. Shang, et al. On the road with gpt-4v (ision): Early explorations of visual-language model on autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05332, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. Mao, J. Ye, Y . Qian, M. Pavone, and Y . Wang. A language agent for autonomous driving. 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. Mao, Y . Qian, H. Zhao, and Y . Wang. Gpt-driver: Learning to drive with gpt.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01415, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. Sha, Y . Mu, Y . Jiang, L. Chen, C. Xu, P. Luo, S. E. Li, M. Tomizuka, W. Zhan, and M. Ding. Languagempc: Large language models as decision makers for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03026, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y . Jin, X. Shen, H. Peng, X. Liu, J. Qin, J. Li, J. Xie, P. Gao, G. Zhou, and J. Gong. Surrealdriver: Designing generative driver agent simulation framework in urban contexts based on large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. Cui, Y . Ma, X. Cao, W. Ye, and Z. Wang. Receive, reason, and react: Drive as you say with large language models in autonomous vehicles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08034, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Z. Xu, Y . Zhang, E. Xie, Z. Zhao, Y . Guo, K. K. Wong, Z. Li, and H. Zhao. Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01412, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X. Ding, J. Han, H. Xu, W. Zhang, and X. Li. Hilm-d: Towards high-resolution understanding in multimodal large language models for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05186, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Yang, J. Liu, R. Zhang, M. Pan, Z. Guo, X. Li, Z. Chen, P. Gao, Y . Guo, and S. Zhang. Lidar-llm: Exploring the potential of large language models for 3d lidar understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14074, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Caesar, V

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11621–11631, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caine, et al. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, page...

    2020

  25. [33]

    J. Mao, M. Niu, C. Jiang, H. Liang, J. Chen, X. Liang, Y . Li, C. Ye, W. Zhang, Z. Li, et al. One million scenes for autonomous driving: Once dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11037, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H. Shao, Y . Hu, L. Wang, S. L. Waslander, Y . Liu, and H. Li. Lmdrive: Closed-loop end-to-end driving with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07488, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. Nie, R. Peng, C. Wang, X. Cai, J. Han, H. Xu, and L. Zhang. Reason2drive: Towards inter- pretable and chain-based reasoning for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03661, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    X. Gao, Y . Wu, R. Wang, C. Liu, Y . Zhou, and Z. Tu. Langcoop: Collaborative driving with language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13406, 2025. 12 A Method The Algorithm 1 implements LLM+DEBRIEF, a multi-LLM-agent learning framework that lever- ages communication and centralized re...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sign of the Lane ID indicate the direction of the lane

  30. [38]

    Be sure to analyze the messages and how that message will affect you

    Your received messages are from other vehicles. Be sure to analyze the messages and how that message will affect you

  31. [39]

    You decide an action every 10 frames (0.5 seconds)

  32. [40]

    User Observation: You are driving Vehicle 241, a vehicle.lincoln.mkz_2020

    Do not switch your action unless it is necessary. User Observation: You are driving Vehicle 241, a vehicle.lincoln.mkz_2020. Your current speed is 0.00 m/s, and the speed limit is 10.00 m/s. Your current speed is lower than the speed limit. The traffic light for you is current...

  33. [42]

    If they are close, prepare to adjust your speed promptly to facilitate safe merging.2

    **Early Detection and Assessment**: Identify merging vehicles early, focusing on their speed and proximity. If they are close, prepare to adjust your speed promptly to facilitate safe merging.2. **Prioritize Safety Over Speed**: Always prioritize avoiding collisions over maint...

  34. [249]

    Please keep me updated on the status of Vehicle 242

    I will remain stationary until further notice. Please keep me updated on the status of Vehicle 242. Safety first.'} Figure 4:Example Agent Prompting Flow. 18 E Example Learned Knowledge and Cooperative Strategies The following knowledge examples are fully generated by LLMs wit...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.