Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Chain-of-Thought for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Prospects

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Step-by-step chain-of-thought reasoning is becoming a transferable design principle across perception, prediction, planning, decision-making, and end-to-end autonomous driving systems.

desk verdict A useful survey and reference map, but the abstract's 'substantial improvement' claim outruns the evidence it organizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20223 v1 pith:VEDJUKGK submitted 2025-05-26 cs.RO cs.LG

Yixin Cui , Haotian Lin , Shuo Yang , Yixiao Wang , Yanjun Huang , Hong Chen This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.LG
keywords chain-of-thoughtautonomousdrivinglargelanguagemodelsreasoningself-evolutionreflectionvision-languageend-to-end
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

This survey asks whether chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, in which a model spells out intermediate reasoning steps before producing an answer, can improve autonomous driving systems. Its answer is yes, and it organizes the evidence into a two-axis map: methods are classified by pipeline structure (modular, logical, and reflective) and by task domain (perception, prediction and planning, decision-making and control, and end-to-end driving). The paper also catalogs reasoning-augmented datasets and proposes that the field is moving through three stages—direct prompting, imitation fine-tuning, and reinforcement-driven self-evolution. A reader should care because the survey turns scattered single-system results into a design principle worth testing: explicit multi-step reasoning could make driving decisions both safer and more interpretable in complex scenarios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the chain-of-thought transition formalism $C := (P \xrightarrow{T_1} S_1) \odot (S_1 \xrightarrow{T_2} S_2) \odot \cdots \odot (S_{n-1} \xrightarrow{T_n} R)$, which represents a driving task as a sequence of reasoning steps $T_i$ taking intermediate states $S_i$ to a final result $R$. The paper derives three pipeline variants from it: modular chains whose steps are independent submodules, logical chains that add a constraint operator $\varphi_i$ at each step, and reflective chains that append a feedback operator $\circlearrowleft$ to correct and remember. It also uses the three-stage learning progression—Direct, Imitation, and Reinforcement CoT—as the mechanism by which systems gain and eventually self-discover reasoning ability. These formalizations do the work of turning a scattered set of systems into a design space a reader can navigate.

What would settle it

Run a representative subset of the surveyed CoT systems against their own non-CoT baselines on the same closed-loop simulator, with identical conditions and reported confidence intervals; if the chained-reasoning variants do not consistently beat the baselines on driving score, infraction rate, and trajectory error, the survey's central claim is falsified. A cheaper check on the survey itself: references [72] and [127] share the same arXiv identifier, 2501.04671, so verifying whether these are two distinct papers tests the reliability of the corpus on which the taxonomy is built.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that CoT reasoning, originally developed for language models, transfers to autonomous driving as a structured multi-step reasoning paradigm that decomposes driving tasks into explicit, interpretable steps. On this basis it proposes a dual taxonomy: by pipeline structure—Modular Driving CoT (each driving module is a step in the chain), Logical Driving CoT (steps are constrained by logical operators $\varphi_i$), and Reflective Driving CoT (a feedback loop $\circlearrowleft$ compares outcomes with memory and corrects decisions)—and by task domain (perception, prediction and planning, decision-making and control, and end-to-end systems). It further claims that the field is evolving through three stages: Direct CoT (prompting without training), Imitation CoT (supervised fine-tuning on reasoning-chain data), and Reinforcement CoT (reinforcement learning that lets the system discover extended reasoning chains, potentially producing an 'Aha Moment'). Finally, it argues that datasets must embed reasoning chains—question-answer chains, graph-structured QA, and full reasoning-process annotations—and that evaluation should combine reasoning-quality metrics such as ADRScore with driving-performance metrics such as driving score, ADE, and FDE.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the surveyed primary papers' reported gains from chain-of-thought reasoning in driving are real, representative, and accurately summarized; if those reports overstate results or the survey misreads them, the taxonomy and three-stage progression built on them lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CoT is a genuine design principle, future driving systems can be architected as explicit reasoning chains from perception to control, giving engineers and regulators a concrete trace of why a decision was made.
  • Training data for driving models should include labeled reasoning chains, not just sensor-action pairs, following the pattern set by datasets such as DriveCoT, DriveLM, and Reason2Drive.
  • Evaluation of driving systems should pair reasoning-quality metrics like ADRScore with trajectory and safety metrics such as ADE, FDE, driving score, and collision rate, since fluent text alone does not prove correct decisions.
  • The Reinforcement CoT stage implies that driving systems could eventually improve beyond demonstrated human behavior by searching over reasoning chains, provided safe training and reward environments exist.
  • Real-time deployment will require compressed or implicit forms of CoT, because explicit multi-step text reasoning carries latency and compute costs that today's embedded platforms cannot bear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If explicit CoT's main value is as a verification interface, then latent (implicit) CoT variants could deliver the same decisions at lower latency, making the textual chain a development-time tool rather than a runtime requirement.
  • The 'Aha Moment' observed in reinforcement-trained language models may not transfer to driving, where success is continuous control and safety rather than discrete answer correctness; a driving equivalent would need a reward that rewards better reasoning chains, not just better trajectories.
  • A clean test of the taxonomy would hold the base model fixed and compare modular, logical, and reflective chains on the same closed-loop benchmark, isolating whether the reflective feedback loop is what drives measured gains.
  • The survey's evidence could be sharpened by a meta-analysis of the cited papers' effect sizes and error bars; without those, the reported CoT gains may not be dependable across scenarios.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This survey reviews the application of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods to autonomous driving. It organizes the literature along two dimensions: pipeline structure (modular, logical, and reflective CoT) and task domain (perception, prediction/planning, decision-making/control, and end-to-end systems). It also catalogs cognition-augmented datasets, summarizes evaluation metrics, and proposes a three-stage evolution of CoT in driving (Direct, Imitation, and Reinforcement). The authors argue that CoT substantially improves the reasoning abilities of autonomous driving models and outline future directions, including combining CoT with self-learning.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, this survey would be a valuable organizing framework for a rapidly growing research area. Its strengths include broad coverage of 2023–2025 work, a comparative dataset table (Table II), and a publicly maintained repository. The proposed taxonomy and three-stage evolutionary perspective offer useful scaffolding for future research. However, the significance is currently tempered by the lack of a quantitative evidence synthesis and by several accuracy issues in the reference list and historical attribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section II-C] The paper's central claim, stated in the abstract and in Section II-C, is that CoT 'substantially improves' the reasoning abilities of autonomous driving models. The manuscript does not provide a quantitative synthesis to support this strong claim. Section IV-B lists evaluation metrics but reports no effect sizes, confidence intervals, or controlled comparisons between CoT-enabled and CoT-disabled versions of the same model. Moreover, the paper itself cites Sprague et al. [60], which finds that CoT helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning and can even hurt performance on other tasks, and RDA-Driver [81], which reports mismatches between CoT reasoning and planning outputs. I recommend that the authors either aggregate same-model CoT ablations across the surveyed papers (e.g., in a table) or substantially temper the wording in the abstract and Section II-C to 'may improve' with an explicit discussion of the mixed evidence.
  2. [References [72] and [127]] References [72] and [127] both list the same arXiv identifier (2501.04671) although they correspond to two distinct papers: RIV-CoT and DRIVINGVQA. Both works are discussed separately in Sections III-B-a and IV-A, so the duplicate identifier makes it impossible for readers to verify which source supports which claim. This citation error is a significant reliability problem for a survey. Please correct one of the identifiers (presumably [127]) and carefully proofread the entire reference list for similar duplications.
  3. [Section III (overall)] The survey does not describe its methodology for literature search, paper selection, or the assignment of papers to the modular/logical/reflective taxonomy. Without knowing the databases queried, the inclusion criteria, or how the categories were derived, readers cannot assess whether the taxonomy is exhaustive or whether the categorization is reproducible. I recommend adding a short 'review method' subsection that details the search process, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the coding procedure used to assign papers to pipeline paradigms. This would substantially strengthen the paper's scholarly value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II-C] The sentence 'Initially proposed by DeepMind' is incorrect: reference [13] is the Google Brain paper by Wei et al., not a DeepMind publication. Please correct the attribution.
  2. [Section III-A] The formalisms in Eqs. (1)–(4) introduce nonstandard notation (e.g., the ⊙ operator) that is not used elsewhere in the paper. Please either clarify the algebraic semantics with a concrete example or consider removing the equations if they do not drive the subsequent analysis.
  3. [Table I] The entries in the 'Chain-of-thought cognitive process' column are telegraphic and may be hard to interpret without the full text. Adding a brief legend or a worked example of at least one row would improve readability.
  4. [Section IV-A] The description of DRIVINGVQA says it is extracted from authentic French driving theory exams, but the dataset table lists the source as 'Code de la Route.' After fixing the duplicate identifier for reference [127], please ensure the source description is consistent between the text and the table.
  5. [Figure 2] The subplot labels use full-width Chinese parentheses (e.g., '（a)'), which will likely render incorrectly in many PDF viewers. Please replace them with ASCII parentheses.
  6. [Throughout] There are several capitalization and spelling inconsistencies, such as 'Dilu' versus 'DiLu' in Section III-A-c, and 'CoT-Drive' appearing with different hyphenation in Section III-B-b. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: the survey is an organized literature synthesis and future-direction proposal, not a derived prediction; the only self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a survey paper, so circularity targets such as fitted parameters renamed as predictions, equations reducing to their own inputs, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors do not apply. The central claim that CoT substantially improves autonomous driving is an aggregative summary of the cited primary systems; the paper does not pool or fit any quantitative effect. Equations (1)-(4) are explicit formal definitions of the modular, logical, and reflective pipeline categories, and no later result is obtained from them by substitution or fitting. Section IV-B lists metrics (ADE/FDE, Driving Score, Route Completion, L2 error, collision rate) without fabricating a pooled estimate, and the direct/imitation/reinforcement CoT stages are a proposed taxonomy over existing prompting, SFT, and RL practices, not a renaming of a hidden empirical result. The only self-citations are background: [35] (present first author) is one of several references for the standard claim that end-to-end driving faces long-tail challenges, and [45] (co-authors Huang and Chen) is one of three references supporting 'self-learning methods' as part of the knowledge-driven paradigm. The future proposal of combining CoT with self-learning is explicitly a suggested direction and rests primarily on external evidence such as DeepSeek-R1 [16] and AlphaDrive [57]; it is not derived from [45]. The survey's real weaknesses are evidentiary rather than circular: it does not apply the caveat from its own cited reference [60] that CoT helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning, and it reports no controlled same-model CoT ablations. Mechanical errors such as the duplicate arXiv identifier shared by [72] and [127], and the misattribution of CoT's origin to DeepMind in Section II-C, affect accuracy but do not establish circularity. Under the rubric, the presence of one minor non-load-bearing self-citation supports a score of 2 rather than 0, but no load-bearing step in the paper is equivalent to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no fitted parameters or new entities. Its claims rest on the accuracy and representativeness of the cited literature plus its own descriptive taxonomies, which are not independently validated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The reviewed CoT methods are correctly categorized and the reported performance improvements are taken at face value.
    The survey makes no independent measurements; every claim about CoT benefits in Sections III and V rests on the primary papers it cites.
  • ad hoc to paper The modular, logical, and reflective pipeline distinction is a meaningful partition of the design space.
    This taxonomy is introduced by the authors in Section III-A and is not derived from a formal framework or benchmark; it is a descriptive lens.
  • ad hoc to paper The Direct, Imitation, and Reinforcement CoT stages are natural evolutionary phases for driving reasoning.
    Proposed in Section V, this three-stage roadmap is inspired by DeepSeek-R1's RL training but is not empirically demonstrated for driving.
  • ad hoc to paper Equation formalism in Section II-C and Section III-A adequately represents reasoning pipelines.
    The circle-dot and loop operators are defined only informally and are never used to derive a testable consequence; they are illustrative notation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chain-of-Thought for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Prospects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VEDJUKGK

@misc{pith2026250520223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chain-of-Thought for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Prospects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VEDJUKGK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20223}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid evolution of large language models in natural language processing has substantially elevated their semantic understanding and logical reasoning capabilities. Such proficiencies have been leveraged in autonomous driving systems, contributing to significant improvements in system performance. Models such as OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1, leverage Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, an advanced cognitive method that simulates human thinking processes, demonstrating remarkable reasoning capabilities in complex tasks. By structuring complex driving scenarios within a systematic reasoning framework, this approach has emerged as a prominent research focus in autonomous driving, substantially improving the system's ability to handle challenging cases. This paper investigates how CoT methods improve the reasoning abilities of autonomous driving models. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we present a systematic analysis of the motivations, methodologies, challenges, and future research directions of CoT in autonomous driving. Furthermore, we propose the insight of combining CoT with self-learning to facilitate self-evolution in driving systems. To ensure the relevance and timeliness of this study, we have compiled a dynamic repository of literature and open-source projects, diligently updated to incorporate forefront developments. The repository is publicly available at https://github.com/cuiyx1720/Awesome-CoT4AD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. It presents an overview of Chain-of-Thought for autonomous driving, outlining the motivations, framework, methodological paradigms, key challenges, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. It compares different variants of thought reasoning paradigms, from basic input-output to advanced forms like chain, tree, and graph of thought, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. As a representative of Modular Driving CoT, DriveLM decomposes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PRIMEDrive-CoT evaluates collision probability, occlusion conditions, and unknown object risks through a hierarchical triple-risk verification process, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dilu employs Reflective Driving CoT, integrating memory recall and introspection into the reasoning process [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Current autonomous driving research primarily employs Direct CoT and Imitation CoT for basic reasoning tasks, while emerging Reinforcement CoT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Survey on Vision-Language-Action Models for Autonomous Driving

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey organizes vision-language-action models for autonomous driving into four stages, compares over 20 systems, and catalogs datasets, benchmarks, and open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [60]

    To cot or not to cot? chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning,

    Z. Sprague, F. Yin, J. D. Rodriguez, D. Jiang, M. Wadhwa, P. Singhal, X. Zhao, X. Ye, K. Mahowald, and G. Durrett, “To cot or not to cot? chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12183, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [127]

    Drivingvqa: Analyzing visual chain-of-thought reasoning of vision language models in real-world scenarios with driving theory tests,

    C. Corbi `ere, S. Roburin, S. Montariol, A. Bosselut, and A. Alahi, “Drivingvqa: Analyzing visual chain-of-thought reasoning of vision language models in real-world scenarios with driving theory tests,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04671 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [81]

    Making large language models better planners with reasoning-decision alignment,

    Z. Huang, T. Tang, S. Chen, S. Lin, Z. Jie, L. Ma, G. Wang, and X. Liang, “Making large language models better planners with reasoning-decision alignment,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 73–90

    2024

  4. [1]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  5. [2]

    Language mod- els are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language mod- els are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  6. [3]

    Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing,

    P. Liu, W. Yuan, J. Fu, Z. Jiang, H. Hayashi, and G. Neubig, “Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing,” ACM computing surveys, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 1–35, 2023

    2023

  7. [4]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [5]

    When brain-inspired ai meets agi,

    L. Zhao, L. Zhang, Z. Wu, Y . Chen, H. Dai, X. Yu, Z. Liu, T. Zhang, X. Hu, X. Jiang et al. , “When brain-inspired ai meets agi,” Meta- Radiology, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 100005, 2023

    2023

Show all 159 references
  1. [6]

    Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey,

    B. R. Kiran, I. Sobh, V . Talpaert, P. Mannion, A. A. Al Sallab, S. Yo- gamani, and P. P ´erez, “Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 4909–4926, 2021

    2021

  2. [7]

    Prospective role of foundation models in advancing autonomous vehicles,

    J. Wu, B. Gao, J. Gao, J. Yu, H. Chu, Q. Yu, X. Gong, Y . Chang, H. E. Tseng, H. Chen et al. , “Prospective role of foundation models in advancing autonomous vehicles,” Research, vol. 7, p. 0399, 2024

    2024

  3. [8]

    Large language models for autonomous driving (llm4ad): Concept, benchmark, simulation, and real-vehicle experiment,

    C. Cui, Y . Ma, Z. Yang, Y . Zhou, P. Liu, J. Lu, L. Li, Y . Chen, J. H. Panchal, A. Abdelraouf et al., “Large language models for autonomous driving (llm4ad): Concept, benchmark, simulation, and real-vehicle experiment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15281 , 2024

  4. [9]

    A survey on multimodal large language models for autonomous driving,

    C. Cui, Y . Ma, X. Cao, W. Ye, Y . Zhou, K. Liang, J. Chen, J. Lu, Z. Yang, K.-D. Liao et al. , “A survey on multimodal large language models for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 958– 979

    2024

  5. [10]

    A survey on recent advancements in autonomous driving using deep reinforcement learning: Applications, challenges, and solutions,

    R. Zhao, Y . Li, Y . Fan, F. Gao, M. Tsukada, and Z. Gao, “A survey on recent advancements in autonomous driving using deep reinforcement learning: Applications, challenges, and solutions,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    2024

  6. [11]

    End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers,

    L. Chen, P. Wu, K. Chitta, B. Jaeger, A. Geiger, and H. Li, “End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024

    2024

  7. [12]

    Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey,

    J. Huang and K. C.-C. Chang, “Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    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 , vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  9. [14]

    Towards system 2 reasoning in llms: Learning how to think with meta chain-of-though,

    V . Xiang, C. Snell, K. Gandhi, A. Albalak, A. Singh, C. Blagden, D. Phung, R. Rafailov, N. Lile, D. Mahan et al. , “Towards system 2 reasoning in llms: Learning how to think with meta chain-of-though,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04682 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Openai o1 system card,

    A. Jaech, A. Kalai, A. Lerer, A. Richardson, A. El-Kishky, A. Low, A. Helyar, A. Madry, A. Beutel, A. Carney et al., “Openai o1 system card,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720 , 2024. 15

    2024 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning,

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Ma, P. Wang, X. Bi et al., “Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Cot-tl: Low-resource tem- poral knowledge representation of planning instructions using chain- of-thought reasoning,

    K. Manas, S. Zwicklbauer, and A. Paschke, “Cot-tl: Low-resource tem- poral knowledge representation of planning instructions using chain- of-thought reasoning,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 9636–9643

    2024

  13. [18]

    Drivecot: Integrating chain-of-thought reasoning with end-to-end driving,

    T. Wang, E. Xie, R. Chu, Z. Li, and P. Luo, “Drivecot: Integrating chain-of-thought reasoning with end-to-end driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16996, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Medcot: Medical chain of thought via hierarchical expert,

    J. Liu, Y . Wang, J. Du, J. T. Zhou, and Z. Liu, “Medcot: Medical chain of thought via hierarchical expert,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13736 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Leveraging nlp in finance: A synergistic approach using large language models and chain-of-thought reasoning,

    Y . Deng, X. Zhang, D. Zhou, D. Zhang, and B. Huang, “Leveraging nlp in finance: A synergistic approach using large language models and chain-of-thought reasoning,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Engineering, 2024, pp...

    2024

  16. [21]

    M 3 cot: A novel benchmark for multi-domain multi-step multi-modal chain-of- thought,

    Q. Chen, L. Qin, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, X. Xu, and W. Che, “M 3 cot: A novel benchmark for multi-domain multi-step multi-modal chain-of- thought,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16473 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Drive like a human: Rethinking autonomous driving with large language models,

    D. Fu, X. Li, L. Wen, M. Dou, P. Cai, B. Shi, and Y . Qiao, “Drive like a human: Rethinking autonomous driving with large language models,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW). IEEE, 2024, pp. 910–919

    2024

  18. [23]

    Learning autonomous driving tasks via human feedbacks with large language models,

    Y . Ma, X. Cao, W. Ye, C. Cui, K. Mei, and Z. Wang, “Learning autonomous driving tasks via human feedbacks with large language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 2024, pp. 4985–4995

    2024

  19. [24]

    Drivevlm: The convergence of au- tonomous driving and large vision-language models,

    X. Tian, J. Gu, B. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Wang, Z. Zhao, K. Zhan, P. Jia, X. Lang, and H. Zhao, “Drivevlm: The convergence of au- tonomous driving and large vision-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12289, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Reason2drive: Towards interpretable and chain-based reasoning for autonomous driving,

    M. Nie, R. Peng, C. Wang, X. Cai, J. Han, H. Xu, and L. Zhang, “Reason2drive: Towards interpretable and chain-based reasoning for autonomous driving,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 292–308

    2024

  21. [26]

    Llm4drive: A survey of large language models for autonomous driving,

    Z. Yang, X. Jia, H. Li, and J. Yan, “Llm4drive: A survey of large language models for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01043, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [27]

    A survey for foundation models in autonomous driving,

    H. Gao, Z. Wang, Y . Li, K. Long, M. Yang, and Y . Shen, “A survey for foundation models in autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01105, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Vision language models in autonomous driving: A survey and outlook,

    X. Zhou, M. Liu, E. Yurtsever, B. L. Zagar, W. Zimmer, H. Cao, and A. C. Knoll, “Vision language models in autonomous driving: A survey and outlook,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2024

    2024

  24. [29]

    Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models,

    Q. Chen, L. Qin, J. Liu, D. Peng, J. Guan, P. Wang, M. Hu, Y . Zhou, T. Gao, and W. Che, “Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09567, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Towards better chain-of-thought prompting strategies: A survey,

    Z. Yu, L. He, Z. Wu, X. Dai, and J. Chen, “Towards better chain-of-thought prompting strategies: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04959, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Scalable end-to-end autonomous vehicle testing via rare-event simu- lation,

    M. O’Kelly, A. Sinha, H. Namkoong, R. Tedrake, and J. C. Duchi, “Scalable end-to-end autonomous vehicle testing via rare-event simu- lation,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  27. [32]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang et al. , “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

    2023

  28. [33]

    End-to- end urban driving by imitating a reinforcement learning coach,

    Z. Zhang, A. Liniger, D. Dai, F. Yu, and L. Van Gool, “End-to- end urban driving by imitating a reinforcement learning coach,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 15 222–15 232

    2021

  29. [34]

    Imitation learning for agile autonomous driving,

    Y . Pan, C.-A. Cheng, K. Saigol, K. Lee, X. Yan, E. A. Theodorou, and B. Boots, “Imitation learning for agile autonomous driving,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 2-3, pp. 286– 302, 2020

    2020

  30. [35]

    Sustainable adaptation for autonomous driving with the mix- ture of progressive experts networ,

    Y . Cui, S. Yang, C. Wan, X. Li, J. Xing, Y . Zhang, Y . Huang, and H. Chen, “Sustainable adaptation for autonomous driving with the mix- ture of progressive experts networ,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05943 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Towards knowledge-driven autonomous driving,

    X. Li, Y . Bai, P. Cai, L. Wen, D. Fu, B. Zhang, X. Yang, X. Cai, T. Ma, J. Guo et al., “Towards knowledge-driven autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04316, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations,

    M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, “Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations,” Physical review E, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 1805, 2000

    2000

  33. [38]

    Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving,

    W. Xiao, N. Mehdipour, A. Collin, A. Y . Bin-Nun, E. Frazzoli, R. D. Tebbens, and C. Belta, “Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Confer- ence on Cyber-Physical Systems , 2021, pp. 143–154

    2021

  34. [39]

    A reinforcement learning-based adaptive path tracking approach for autonomous driv- ing,

    Y . Shan, B. Zheng, L. Chen, L. Chen, and D. Chen, “A reinforcement learning-based adaptive path tracking approach for autonomous driv- ing,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 10 581–10 595, 2020

    2020

  35. [40]

    High-level decision making for automated highway driving via behavior cloning,

    L. Wang, C. Fernandez, and C. Stiller, “High-level decision making for automated highway driving via behavior cloning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 923–935, 2022

    2022

  36. [41]

    Dilu: A knowledge-driven approach to autonomous driving with large language models,

    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

  37. [42]

    Wisead: Knowl- edge augmented end-to-end autonomous driving with vision-language model,

    S. Zhang, W. Huang, Z. Gao, H. Chen, and C. Lv, “Wisead: Knowl- edge augmented end-to-end autonomous driving with vision-language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09951 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Brachman and H

    R. Brachman and H. Levesque, Knowledge representation and reason- ing. Elsevier, 2004

    2004

  39. [44]

    Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters,

    B. Wang, S. Min, X. Deng, J. Shen, Y . Wu, L. Zettlemoyer, and H. Sun, “Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  40. [45]

    A comprehensive study on self-learning methods and implications to autonomous driving,

    J. Xing, D. Wei, S. Zhou, T. Wang, Y . Huang, and H. Chen, “A comprehensive study on self-learning methods and implications to autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2024

    2024

  41. [46]

    The role of world models in shaping autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey,

    S. Tu, X. Zhou, D. Liang, X. Jiang, Y . Zhang, X. Li, and X. Bai, “The role of world models in shaping autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10498 , 2025

    2025

  42. [47]

    Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction,

    D. Pathak, P. Agrawal, A. A. Efros, and T. Darrell, “Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 2778–2787

    2017

  43. [48]

    Enhancing autonomous driving through dual-process learning with behavior and reflection integration,

    X. Zhang, K. Wang, T. Hu, and H. Ma, “Enhancing autonomous driving through dual-process learning with behavior and reflection integration,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  44. [49]

    Continuously learning, adapting, and improv- ing: A dual-process approach to autonomous driving,

    J. Mei, Y . Ma, X. Yang, L. Wen, X. Cai, X. Li, D. Fu, B. Zhang, P. Cai, M. Dou et al. , “Continuously learning, adapting, and improv- ing: A dual-process approach to autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15324, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [50]

    Gem- ini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Yu, R. Soricut, J. Schalkwyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, K. Millican et al. , “Gem- ini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [51]

    Gpt-4o system card,

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford et al., “Gpt-4o system card,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [52]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report,

    A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Zhang, C. Ruan et al. , “Deepseek-v3 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [53]

    Enhancing advanced visual reasoning ability of large language models,

    Z. Li, D. Liu, C. Zhang, H. Wang, T. Xue, and W. Cai, “Enhancing advanced visual reasoning ability of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13980, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [54]

    Mm-llms: Recent advances in multimodal large language models,

    D. Zhang, Y . Yu, J. Dong, C. Li, D. Su, C. Chu, and D. Yu, “Mm-llms: Recent advances in multimodal large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13601, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [55]

    Visual large language models for generalized and specialized applications,

    Y . Li, Z. Lai, W. Bao, Z. Tan, A. Dao, K. Sui, J. Shen, D. Liu, H. Liu, and Y . Kong, “Visual large language models for generalized and specialized applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02765 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Opendrivevla: Towards end-to-end autonomous driving with large vision language action model,

    X. Zhou, X. Han, F. Yang, Y . Ma, and A. C. Knoll, “Opendrivevla: Towards end-to-end autonomous driving with large vision language action model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23463 , 2025

    2025

  52. [57]

    Alphadrive: Unleashing the power of vlms in autonomous driving via reinforcement learning and reasoning,

    B. Jiang, S. Chen, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “Alphadrive: Unleashing the power of vlms in autonomous driving via reinforcement learning and reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07608 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [58]

    A survey of efficient reasoning for large rea- soning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond,

    X. Qu, Y . Li, Z. Su, W. Sun, J. Yan, D. Liu, G. Cui, D. Liu, S. Liang, J. He et al. , “A survey of efficient reasoning for large rea- soning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21614, 2025

    2025

  54. [59]

    Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning tasks,

    I. Dasgupta, A. K. Lampinen, S. C. Chan, H. R. Sheahan, A. Creswell, D. Kumaran, J. L. McClelland, and F. Hill, “Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07051, 2022. 16

    2022 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Let’s verify step by step,

    H. Lightman, V . Kosaraju, Y . Burda, H. Edwards, B. Baker, T. Lee, J. Leike, J. Schulman, I. Sutskever, and K. Cobbe, “Let’s verify step by step,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  56. [62]

    Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 199–22 213, 2022

    2022

  57. [63]

    On second thought, let’s not think step by step! bias and toxicity in zero-shot reasoning,

    O. Shaikh, H. Zhang, W. Held, M. Bernstein, and D. Yang, “On second thought, let’s not think step by step! bias and toxicity in zero-shot reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08061 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Supervised chain of thought,

    X. Zhang and D. Ding, “Supervised chain of thought,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14198, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought rea- soning in language models,

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowd- hery, and D. Zhou, “Self-consistency improves chain of thought rea- soning in language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan, “Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, pp. 11 809–11 822, 2023

    2023

  61. [67]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models,

    M. Besta, N. Blach, A. Kubicek, R. Gerstenberger, M. Podstawski, L. Gianinazzi, J. Gajda, T. Lehmann, H. Niewiadomski, P. Nyczyk et al. , “Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligenc...

    2024

  62. [68]

    Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning,

    H. Shao, S. Qian, H. Xiao, G. Song, Z. Zong, L. Wang, Y . Liu, and H. Li, “Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 8612– 8642, 2024

    2024

  63. [69]

    Multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning in language models,

    Z. Zhang, A. Zhang, M. Li, H. Zhao, G. Karypis, and A. Smola, “Multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning in language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00923, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  64. [70]

    A language agent for autonomous driving,

    J. Mao, J. Ye, Y . Qian, M. Pavone, and Y . Wang, “A language agent for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10813 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Dolphins: Multimodal language model for driving,

    Y . Ma, Y . Cao, J. Sun, M. Pavone, and C. Xiao, “Dolphins: Multimodal language model for driving,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 403–420

    2024

  66. [73]

    Driveagent: Multi-agent structured reasoning with llm and multimodal sensor fusion for autonomous driving,

    X. Hou, W. Wang, L. Yang, H. Lin, J. Feng, H. Min, and X. Zhao, “Driveagent: Multi-agent structured reasoning with llm and multimodal sensor fusion for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02123, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Agentthink: A unified framework for tool-augmented chain-of-thought reasoning in vision-language models for autonomous driving,

    K. Qian, S. Jiang, Y . Zhong, Z. Luo, Z. Huang, T. Zhu, K. Jiang, M. Yang, Z. Fu, J. Miao et al., “Agentthink: A unified framework for tool-augmented chain-of-thought reasoning in vision-language models for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15298 , 2025

    2025

  68. [75]

    Womd-reasoning: A large-scale language dataset for interaction and driving intentions reasoning,

    Y . Li, C. Ge, C. Li, C. Xu, M. Tomizuka, C. Tang, M. Ding, and W. Zhan, “Womd-reasoning: A large-scale language dataset for interaction and driving intentions reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04281, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Lc-llm: Explainable lane-change intention and trajectory predictions with large language models,

    M. Peng, X. Guo, X. Chen, K. Chen, M. Zhu, L. Chen, and F.-Y . Wang, “Lc-llm: Explainable lane-change intention and trajectory predictions with large language models,” Communications in Transportation Re- search, vol. 5, p. 100170, 2025

    2025

  70. [77]

    Cot-drive: Efficient motion forecasting for autonomous driving with llms and chain-of-thought prompting,

    H. Liao, H. Kong, B. Wang, C. Wang, W. Ye, Z. He, C. Xu, and Z. Li, “Cot-drive: Efficient motion forecasting for autonomous driving with llms and chain-of-thought prompting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07234, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Senserag: Constructing environmental knowledge bases with proactive querying for llm-based autonomous driving,

    X. Luo, C. Liu, F. Ding, F. Yang, Y . Zhou, J. Loo, and H. H. Tew, “Senserag: Constructing environmental knowledge bases with proactive querying for llm-based autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2025, pp. 989– 996

    2025

  72. [79]

    Gpt-driver: Learning to drive with gpt,

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

    2023 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Planagent: A multi-modal large lan- guage agent for closed-loop vehicle motion planning,

    Y . Zheng, Z. Xing, Q. Zhang, B. Jin, P. Li, Y . Zheng, Z. Xia, K. Zhan, X. Lang, Y . Chenet al., “Planagent: A multi-modal large lan- guage agent for closed-loop vehicle motion planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01587, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Calmm- drive: Confidence-aware autonomous driving with large multimodal model,

    R. Yao, Y . Wang, H. Liu, R. Yang, Z. Peng, L. Zhu, and J. Ma, “Calmm- drive: Confidence-aware autonomous driving with large multimodal model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04209 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Languagempc: Large language models as decision makers for autonomous driving. arxiv 2023,

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

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Drivemlm: Aligning multi-modal large language models with behavioral planning states for autonomous driving,

    W. Wang, J. Xie, C. Hu, H. Zou, J. Fan, W. Tong, Y . Wen, S. Wu, H. Deng, Z. Li et al., “Drivemlm: Aligning multi-modal large language models with behavioral planning states for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09245, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Receive, reason, and react: Drive as you say, with large language models in autonomous vehicles,

    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,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine , 2024

    2024

  78. [86]

    Safedrive: Knowledge-and data-driven risk-sensitive decision-making for au- tonomous vehicles with large language models,

    Z. Zhou, H. Huang, B. Li, S. Zhao, Y . Mu, and J. Wang, “Safedrive: Knowledge-and data-driven risk-sensitive decision-making for au- tonomous vehicles with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13238, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Koma: Knowledge-driven multi-agent framework for autonomous driving with large language models,

    K. Jiang, X. Cai, Z. Cui, A. Li, Y . Ren, H. Yu, H. Yang, D. Fu, L. Wen, and P. Cai, “Koma: Knowledge-driven multi-agent framework for autonomous driving with large language models,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    2024

  80. [88]

    Leapvad: A leap in autonomous driving via cognitive per- ception and dual-process thinking,

    Y . Ma, T. Wei, N. Zhong, J. Mei, T. Hu, L. Wen, X. Yang, B. Shi, and Y . Liu, “Leapvad: A leap in autonomous driving via cognitive per- ception and dual-process thinking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08168 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Towards interactive and learnable cooperative driving automation: a large language model-driven decision-making framework,

    S. Fang, J. Liu, M. Ding, Y . Cui, C. Lv, P. Hang, and J. Sun, “Towards interactive and learnable cooperative driving automation: a large language model-driven decision-making framework,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2025

    2025

  82. [90]

    Interact, instruct to improve: A llm-driven parallel actor-reasoner framework for enhancing autonomous vehicle interactions,

    S. Fang, J. Liu, C. Xu, C. Lv, P. Hang, and J. Sun, “Interact, instruct to improve: A llm-driven parallel actor-reasoner framework for enhancing autonomous vehicle interactions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00502 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Cot-vlm4tar: Chain-of-thought guided vision-language mod- els for traffic anomaly resolution,

    T. Ren, H. Hu, J. Zuo, X. Chen, J. Wang, C. J. Xue, J.-M. Wu, and N. Guan, “Cot-vlm4tar: Chain-of-thought guided vision-language mod- els for traffic anomaly resolution,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01632 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Driving with llms: Fusing object- level vector modality for explainable autonomous driving,

    L. Chen, O. Sinavski, J. H ¨unermann, A. Karnsund, A. J. Willmott, D. Birch, D. Maund, and J. Shotton, “Driving with llms: Fusing object- level vector modality for explainable autonomous driving,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, ...

    2024

  85. [93]

    Pkrd-cot: A unified chain-of-thought prompting for multi-modal large language models in autonomous driving,

    X. Luo, F. Ding, Y . Song, X. Zhang, and J. Loo, “Pkrd-cot: A unified chain-of-thought prompting for multi-modal large language models in autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02025 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Lmdrive: Closed-loop end-to-end driving with large language models,

    H. Shao, Y . Hu, L. Wang, G. Song, S. L. Waslander, Y . Liu, and H. Li, “Lmdrive: Closed-loop end-to-end driving with large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 15 120–15 130

    2024

  87. [95]

    Senna: Bridging large vision-language models and end-to-end autonomous driving,

    B. Jiang, S. Chen, B. Liao, X. Zhang, W. Yin, Q. Zhang, C. Huang, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “Senna: Bridging large vision-language models and end-to-end autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22313, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Emma: End-to-end multimodal model for autonomous driving,

    J.-J. Hwang, R. Xu, H. Lin, W.-C. Hung, J. Ji, K. Choi, D. Huang, T. He, P. Covington, B. Sapp et al. , “Emma: End-to-end multimodal model for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23262 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Open- emma: Open-source multimodal model for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    S. Xing, C. Qian, Y . Wang, H. Hua, K. Tian, Y . Zhou, and Z. Tu, “Open- emma: Open-source multimodal model for end-to-end autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2025, pp. 1001–1009

    2025

  90. [98]

    Lightemma: Lightweight end-to-end multimodal model for autonomous driving,

    Z. Qiao, H. Li, Z. Cao, and H. X. Liu, “Lightemma: Lightweight end-to-end multimodal model for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00284, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Orion: A holistic end-to-end autonomous driving framework by vision-language instructed action generation,

    H. Fu, D. Zhang, Z. Zhao, J. Cui, D. Liang, C. Zhang, D. Zhang, H. Xie, B. Wang, and X. Bai, “Orion: A holistic end-to-end autonomous driving framework by vision-language instructed action generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19755 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Drivelm: Driving with graph visual question answering,

    C. Sima, K. Renz, K. Chitta, L. Chen, H. Zhang, C. Xie, J. Beißwenger, P. Luo, A. Geiger, and H. Li, “Drivelm: Driving with graph visual question answering,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 256–274. 17

    2024

  93. [101]

    Sce2drivex: A generalized mllm framework for scene-to-drive learn- ing,

    R. Zhao, Q. Yuan, J. Li, H. Hu, Y . Li, C. Zheng, and F. Gao, “Sce2drivex: A generalized mllm framework for scene-to-drive learn- ing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14917 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Primedrive-cot: A precognitive chain-of-thought framework for uncertainty-aware object interaction in driving scene scenario,

    S. Mandalika, A. Nambiar et al. , “Primedrive-cot: A precognitive chain-of-thought framework for uncertainty-aware object interaction in driving scene scenario,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05908 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Langcoop: Collaborative driving with language,

    X. Gao, Y . Wu, R. Wang, C. Liu, Y . Zhou, and Z. Tu, “Langcoop: Collaborative driving with language,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13406, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

    X-driver: Explainable autonomous driving with vision-language models,

    W. Liu, J. Zhang, B. Zheng, Y . Hu, Y . Lin, and Z. Zeng, “X-driver: Explainable autonomous driving with vision-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05098, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models,

    D. Zhou, N. Sch ¨arli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schu- urmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. Le et al., “Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Qwen technical report,

    J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y . Fan, W. Ge, Y . Han, F. Huang et al. , “Qwen technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    A survey on large lan- guage models for code generation,

    J. Jiang, F. Wang, J. Shen, S. Kim, and S. Kim, “A survey on large lan- guage models for code generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00515 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Model predictive control,

    B. Kouvaritakis and M. Cannon, “Model predictive control,” Switzer- land: Springer International Publishing, vol. 38, no. 13-56, p. 7, 2016

    2016

  101. [109]

    Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning,

    J. S. B. Evans, “Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning,” British Journal of Psychology , vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 451–468, 1984

    1984

  102. [110]

    From system 1 to system 2: A survey of reasoning large language models,

    Z.-Z. Li, D. Zhang, M.-L. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Liu, Y . Yao, H. Xu, J. Zheng, P.-J. Wang, X. Chen et al. , “From system 1 to system 2: A survey of reasoning large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17419, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  103. [111]

    A survey on autonomous driving datasets,

    W. Liu, Q. Dong, P. Wang, G. Yang, L. Meng, Y . Song, Y . Shi, and Y . Xue, “A survey on autonomous driving datasets,” in 2021 8th In- ternational Conference on Dependable Systems and Their Applications (DSA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 399–407

    2021

  104. [112]

    A survey on autonomous driving datasets: Statistics, annotation quality, and a future outlook,

    M. Liu, E. Yurtsever, J. Fossaert, X. Zhou, W. Zimmer, Y . Cui, B. L. Zagar, and A. C. Knoll, “A survey on autonomous driving datasets: Statistics, annotation quality, and a future outlook,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    2024

  105. [113]

    Aads: Augmented autonomous driving simulation using data-driven algorithms,

    W. Li, C. Pan, R. Zhang, J. Ren, Y . Ma, J. Fang, F. Yan, Q. Geng, X. Huang, H. Gong et al. , “Aads: Augmented autonomous driving simulation using data-driven algorithms,” Science robotics , vol. 4, no. 28, p. eaaw0863, 2019

    2019

  106. [114]

    Are vlms ready for autonomous driving? an empirical study from the reliability, data, and metric perspectives,

    S. Xie, L. Kong, Y . Dong, C. Sima, W. Zhang, Q. A. Chen, Z. Liu, and L. Pan, “Are vlms ready for autonomous driving? an empirical study from the reliability, data, and metric perspectives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04003, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Talk2car: Taking control of your self-driving car,

    T. Deruyttere, S. Vandenhende, D. Grujicic, L. Van Gool, and M.- F. Moens, “Talk2car: Taking control of your self-driving car,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.10838, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Nuscenes-qa: A multi-modal visual question answering benchmark for autonomous driving scenario,

    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,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 5, 2024, pp. 4542–4550

    2024

  109. [117]

    Talk2bev: Language-enhanced bird’s-eye view maps for autonomous driving,

    T. Choudhary, V . Dewangan, S. Chandhok, S. Priyadarshan, A. Jain, A. K. Singh, S. Srivastava, K. M. Jatavallabhula, and K. M. Krishna, “Talk2bev: Language-enhanced bird’s-eye view maps for autonomous driving,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (...

    2024

  110. [118]

    Nuscenes- mqa: Integrated evaluation of captions and qa for autonomous driving datasets using markup annotations,

    Y . Inoue, Y . Yada, K. Tanahashi, and Y . Yamaguchi, “Nuscenes- mqa: Integrated evaluation of captions and qa for autonomous driving datasets using markup annotations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 930– 938

    2024

  111. [119]

    Drivemllm: A benchmark for spatial understanding with multi- modal large language models in autonomous driving,

    X. Guo, R. Zhang, Y . Duan, Y . He, C. Zhang, S. Liu, and L. Chen, “Drivemllm: A benchmark for spatial understanding with multi- modal large language models in autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13112, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Language prompt for autonomous driving,

    D. Wu, W. Han, Y . Liu, T. Wang, C.-z. Xu, X. Zhang, and J. Shen, “Language prompt for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 8, 2025, pp. 8359–8367

    2025

  113. [121]

    Drivelmm- o1: A step-by-step reasoning dataset and large multimodal model for driving scenario understanding,

    A. Ishaq, J. Lahoud, K. More, O. Thawakar, R. Thawkar, D. Dis- sanayake, N. Ahsan, Y . Li, F. S. Khan, H. Cholakkalet al., “Drivelmm- o1: A step-by-step reasoning dataset and large multimodal model for driving scenario understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10621 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Explainable object-induced action decision for autonomous vehicles,

    Y . Xu, X. Yang, L. Gong, H.-C. Lin, T.-Y . Wu, Y . Li, and N. Vas- concelos, “Explainable object-induced action decision for autonomous vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 9523–9532

    2020

  115. [123]

    Textual explanations for self-driving vehicles,

    J. Kim, A. Rohrbach, T. Darrell, J. Canny, and Z. Akata, “Textual explanations for self-driving vehicles,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 563–578

    2018

  116. [124]

    Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model,

    Z. Xu, Y . Zhang, E. Xie, Z. Zhao, Y . Guo, K.-Y . K. Wong, Z. Li, and H. Zhao, “Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  117. [125]

    Referring multi-object tracking,

    D. Wu, W. Han, T. Wang, X. Dong, X. Zhang, and J. Shen, “Referring multi-object tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 14 633–14 642

    2023

  118. [126]

    Cityflow-nl: Tracking and retrieval of vehicles at city scale by natural language descriptions,

    Q. Feng, V . Ablavsky, and S. Sclaroff, “Cityflow-nl: Tracking and retrieval of vehicles at city scale by natural language descriptions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.04741 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  119. [128]

    Maplm: A real-world large-scale vision- language benchmark for map and traffic scene understanding,

    X. Cao, T. Zhou, Y . Ma, W. Ye, C. Cui, K. Tang, Z. Cao, K. Liang, Z. Wang, J. M. Rehg et al., “Maplm: A real-world large-scale vision- language benchmark for map and traffic scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

    2024

  120. [129]

    Rank2tell: A multimodal driving dataset for joint importance ranking and reasoning,

    E. Sachdeva, N. Agarwal, S. Chundi, S. Roelofs, J. Li, M. Kochen- derfer, C. Choi, and B. Dariush, “Rank2tell: A multimodal driving dataset for joint importance ranking and reasoning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision , 2024, ...

    2024

  121. [130]

    Drama: Joint risk localization and captioning in driving,

    S. Malla, C. Choi, I. Dwivedi, J. H. Choi, and J. Li, “Drama: Joint risk localization and captioning in driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 2023, pp. 1043–1052

    2023

  122. [131]

    Lingoqa: Visual question answering for autonomous driving,

    A.-M. Marcu, L. Chen, J. H ¨unermann, A. Karnsund, B. Hanotte, P. Chidananda, S. Nair, V . Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, J. Shotton et al. , “Lingoqa: Visual question answering for autonomous driving,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 252–269

    2024

  123. [132]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,” The international journal of robotics research , vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  124. [133]

    Bdd100k: A diverse driving dataset for heterogeneous multitask learning,

    F. Yu, H. Chen, X. Wang, W. Xian, Y . Chen, F. Liu, V . Madhavan, and T. Darrell, “Bdd100k: A diverse driving dataset for heterogeneous multitask learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 2636–2645

    2020

  125. [134]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    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,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

    2020

  126. [135]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    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 , ...

    2020

  127. [136]

    The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems,

    R. Krajewski, J. Bock, L. Kloeker, and L. Eckstein, “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 systems (ITS...

    2018

  128. [137]

    A critical evaluation of the next generation simulation (ngsim) vehicle trajectory dataset,

    B. Coifman and L. Li, “A critical evaluation of the next generation simulation (ngsim) vehicle trajectory dataset,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 105, pp. 362–377, 2017

    2017

  129. [138]

    Cityflow: A city-scale benchmark for multi-target multi-camera vehicle tracking and re- identification,

    Z. Tang, M. Naphade, M.-Y . Liu, X. Yang, S. Birchfield, S. Wang, R. Kumar, D. Anastasiu, and J.-N. Hwang, “Cityflow: A city-scale benchmark for multi-target multi-camera vehicle tracking and re- identification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision a...

    2019

  130. [139]

    An explainable q-learning method for longitudinal control of autonomous vehicles,

    M. Li, Z. Cui, Y . Wang, Y . Huang, and H. Chen, “An explainable q-learning method for longitudinal control of autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2025

    2025

  131. [140]

    On the impact of fine-tuning on chain-of-thought reasoning,

    E. Lobo, C. Agarwal, and H. Lakkaraju, “On the impact of fine-tuning on chain-of-thought reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15382 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  132. [141]

    Explaining autonomous driving actions with visual question answering,

    S. Atakishiyev, M. Salameh, H. Babiker, and R. Goebel, “Explaining autonomous driving actions with visual question answering,” in 2023 18 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1207–1214

    2023

  133. [142]

    One million scenes for autonomous driving: Once dataset,

    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

  134. [143]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” in Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1–16

    2017

  135. [144]

    Synthetic datasets for autonomous driving: A survey,

    Z. Song, Z. He, X. Li, Q. Ma, R. Ming, Z. Mao, H. Pei, L. Peng, J. Hu, D. Yao et al. , “Synthetic datasets for autonomous driving: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1847–1864, 2023

    2023

  136. [145]

    Think2drive: Efficient reinforce- ment learning by thinking with latent world model for autonomous driving (in carla-v2),

    Q. Li, X. Jia, S. Wang, and J. Yan, “Think2drive: Efficient reinforce- ment learning by thinking with latent world model for autonomous driving (in carla-v2),” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 142–158

    2024

  137. [146]

    Is it safe to drive? an overview of factors, metrics, and datasets for driveability assessment in autonomous driving,

    J. Guo, U. Kurup, and M. Shah, “Is it safe to drive? an overview of factors, metrics, and datasets for driveability assessment in autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 3135–3151, 2019

    2019

  138. [147]

    Roscoe: A suite of metrics for scoring step-by-step reasoning,

    O. Golovneva, M. Chen, S. Poff, M. Corredor, L. Zettlemoyer, M. Fazel-Zarandi, and A. Celikyilmaz, “Roscoe: A suite of metrics for scoring step-by-step reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07919 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  139. [148]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,

    K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu, “Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” in Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2002, pp. 311–318

    2002

  140. [149]

    Cider: Consensus- based image description evaluation,

    R. Vedantam, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and D. Parikh, “Cider: Consensus- based image description evaluation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 4566–4575

    2015

  141. [150]

    Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evalua- tion with improved correlation with human judgments,

    S. Banerjee and A. Lavie, “Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evalua- tion with improved correlation with human judgments,” in Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization , 2005, pp. 65–72

    2005

  142. [151]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” Ad- vances in neural information processing systems , vol. 36, pp. 34 892– 34 916, 2023

    2023

  143. [152]

    Autotrust: Benchmarking trustworthiness in large vision language models for autonomous driving,

    S. Xing, H. Hua, X. Gao, S. Zhu, R. Li, K. Tian, X. Li, H. Huang, T. Yang, Z. Wang et al., “Autotrust: Benchmarking trustworthiness in large vision language models for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15206, 2024

    2024

  144. [153]

    Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model,

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi et al. , “Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  145. [154]

    Large language models for human-like autonomous driving: A survey,

    Y . Li, K. Katsumata, E. Javanmardi, and M. Tsukada, “Large language models for human-like autonomous driving: A survey,” in 2024 IEEE 27th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 439–446

    2024

  146. [155]

    Preference ranking optimization for human alignment,

    F. Song, B. Yu, M. Li, H. Yu, F. Huang, Y . Li, and H. Wang, “Preference ranking optimization for human alignment,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 17, 2024, pp. 18 990– 18 998

    2024

  147. [156]

    Auto- discern: autonomous driving using common sense reasoning,

    S. Kothawade, V . Khandelwal, K. Basu, H. Wang, and G. Gupta, “Auto- discern: autonomous driving using common sense reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13606, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  148. [157]

    Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less,

    S. Xu, W. Xie, L. Zhao, and P. He, “Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18600 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  149. [158]

    Survey of hallucination in natural language generation,

    Z. Ji, N. Lee, R. Frieske, T. Yu, D. Su, Y . Xu, E. Ishii, Y . J. Bang, A. Madotto, and P. Fung, “Survey of hallucination in natural language generation,” ACM computing surveys, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1–38, 2023

    2023

  150. [159]

    From explicit cot to im- plicit cot: Learning to internalize cot step by step,

    Y . Deng, Y . Choi, and S. Shieber, “From explicit cot to im- plicit cot: Learning to internalize cot step by step,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14838, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  151. [160]

    Scalable language models with posterior inference of latent thought vectors,

    D. Kong, M. Zhao, D. Xu, B. Pang, S. Wang, E. Honig, Z. Si, C. Li, J. Xie, S. Xie et al., “Scalable language models with posterior inference of latent thought vectors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01567 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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