Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

CoDriveVLM: VLM-Enhanced Urban Cooperative Dispatching and Motion Planning for Future Autonomous Mobility on Demand Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CoDriveVLM claims that a single vision-language model can both dispatch robotaxis and decide which pairs of them must avoid each other, and that feeding only those pairs into a parallel ADMM trajectory optimizer beats rule-based…

desk verdict A plausible VLM+ADMM integration for AMoD dispatching and cooperative planning, but the safety claim rests on an untested assumption that the VLM groups all collision-risk pairs. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06132 v1 pith:QMBTWLFT submitted 2025-01-10 cs.RO cs.AIcs.MA

Haichao Liu , Ruoyu Yao , Wenru Liu , Zhenmin Huang , Shaojie Shen , Jun Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.MA
keywords vision-languagemodelautonomousmobility-on-demandcooperativemotionplanningconsensusADMMcollisionriskevaluationdispatchingbird's-eyeviewin-contextlearning
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 claims that one vision-language model (VLM) can run the two decisions an Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand (AMoD) system must make continuously: which connected autonomous vehicle (CAV) should serve which passenger request, and which pairs of CAVs are at risk of colliding. The dispatching assignment comes from a VLM that reads an annotated top-down image plus text describing distances, waiting times, and road layout; the collision-risk evaluation comes from a second VLM pass that outputs lists of CAV IDs, and each list becomes a subgraph whose vehicles solve a cooperative trajectory optimization together. Only vehicles in the same subgraph exchange information, and the optimization is carried out by a parallel consensus ADMM solver. The authors report that this integrated pipeline gets the best response and completion rates in most of their urban simulator settings and keeps the smallest inter-vehicle distance penalty, arguing that VLM reasoning can make simultaneous dispatching and collision avoidance both feasible and robust for future robotaxi fleets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is VLM-guided subgraph evolution: a VLM reads a bird's-eye-view image containing all active CAVs with their IDs, headings, velocities, and the road layout, and outputs lists of CAV IDs whose spatial relationship suggests possible collision. Each list becomes a subgraph, and only CAVs inside the same subgraph receive mutual collision-avoidance constraints in the trajectory optimization, which keeps the optimization sparse and the communication local. The optimization engine is dual consensus ADMM, which decomposes each subgraph's optimal control problem into per-vehicle LQR subproblems coupled only through consensus variables exchanged with neighboring vehicles; subgraphs are solved in parallel with no information exchange between them. The dispatching coordinator uses the same VLM architecture with chain-of-thought prompting and top-K memory retrieval to assign free vehicles to passenger requests, so the same perception stack feeds both the scheduling and the risk-grouping decisions.

What would settle it

Re-run the reported urban scenarios with the VLM collision grouping replaced by a deterministic checker that flags every CAV pair within a set distance and closing-speed threshold, then compare the minimum inter-vehicle distance in each time slot; also scan the VLM-generated trajectories for any two vehicles that came closer than the safety margin while their IDs never appeared together in an output list. Either finding would show whether the VLM grouping, rather than the ADMM layer, produces the reported safety margin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a VLM-ADMM hybrid can replace the usual sequential simplification, schedule first and then plan paths on precomputed routes, with a closed loop that handles scheduling, routing, and mutual avoidance together. On the dispatching side, the VLM uses chain-of-thought prompting with few-shot memory retrieval to weigh distance, waiting time, and road geometry, and it outputs CAV-passenger pairs. On the planning side, the same VLM reads a bird's-eye-view image of active CAVs and outputs groups of vehicles that may collide; those groups define subgraphs, and each subgraph's trajectory optimization is solved independently in parallel by dual consensus ADMM with iterative LQR updates. The loop re-plans on a receding horizon and triggers new dispatching only when free vehicles and pending requests coexist. The paper's experimental claim is that this integrated system outperforms distance-first, idle-first, first-come-first-served, and mixed-first dispatch on response rate and completion rate in most tested configurations, and reports the smallest distance penalty, meaning the closest approach between any two CAVs stayed farthest from collision range.

Load-bearing premise

The safety result rests on the vision-language model never missing a pair of cars that could collide, because a missed pair receives no collision-avoidance constraint and the paper does not compare the VLM's grouping with a deterministic rule-based grouping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the VLM reliably flags every collision-prone pair, the ADMM layer only has to couple small subgraphs, so fleet-wide motion planning remains parallel and tractable as the number of vehicles grows.
  • Because dispatching is event-triggered and re-evaluated whenever free vehicles and pending requests coexist, assignments can adapt to newly spawned requests rather than following a fixed precomputed schedule.
  • The ablation without the bird's-eye-view image shows a sharp drop in response and completion rates, which implies that the multimodal image input is doing real work for the dispatching agent.
  • The few-shot memory experiments imply that in-context learning improves dispatching up to a point, with the best results at three retrieved memories and degradation beyond that.
  • The distance-penalty results imply that the VLM's subgraph selection, rather than the optimizer alone, is what prevents close approaches between CAVs in the tested scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: replacing the VLM collision grouping with a deterministic geometric pair-checker would isolate where the safety margin comes from; if the checker matches the reported distance penalty, the VLM is not the source of the improvement.
  • Inference: the framework's real-world viability depends on VLM inference latency and cost, so measuring per-call response time against the 2-second planning horizon would test whether the closed loop can run online rather than in batch simulation.
  • Inference: the same 'let a VLM choose which agents interact, then optimize only those subgraphs' pattern transfers to other multi-robot coordination problems, such as warehouse fleets or intersection management, wherever full pairwise coupling is too expensive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CoDriveVLM, a framework that couples a VLM-based dispatching coordinator with VLM-guided subgraph generation and consensus ADMM for decentralized cooperative motion planning of connected autonomous vehicles in an AMoD system. The dispatching coordinator receives annotated BEV images and textual prompts, uses chain-of-thought reasoning and top-K memory retrieval, and outputs CAV–passenger assignments. A separate VLM invocation analyzes the current BEV and outputs lists of CAV IDs that should be grouped into subgraphs; only vehicles in the same subgraph share collision-avoidance constraints in the OCP solved by ADMM. The authors evaluate the framework in CARLA Town10 across five vehicle/request settings, report response and completion rates, average task response/completion times, and a distance-penalty metric, and compare against four rule-based dispatching baselines. They also ablate the BEV input and foundation model choice and study the few-shot memory count. The central claim is that CoDriveVLM achieves the best response and completion rates in most settings and the smallest distance penalty, demonstrating feasibility and robustness for future AMoD systems.

Significance. If the results are substantiated, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing a concrete way to insert a VLM into both the dispatching and the motion-planning loop of an AMoD system, and by combining that with a scalable decentralized ADMM scheme. The open-source release of the code is a strength that supports reproducibility. However, the significance is currently tempered by the evaluation design: the VLM's role in the safety-critical collision-risk grouping is not isolated against a rule-based grouping baseline, the numerical comparisons are based on single simulation runs without seed variation, and the distance-penalty safety metric lacks error bars. These limitations mean the paper currently demonstrates feasibility in specific logged scenarios rather than robust superiority.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-C and Fig. 11] The safety claim depends on the VLM grouping being complete: only CAV pairs placed in the same subgraph receive mutual collision-avoidance constraints in the OCP of Eq. (9), so a single missed pair is planned without any coupling constraint and may collide. The paper provides no evidence of grouping completeness, no comparison against a rule-based or geometric grouping baseline, and no post-hoc check of whether all near-colliding pairs were grouped. Moreover, Fig. 11 reports the distance penalty from what appears to be a single simulation run without error bars or statistical tests. Without this evidence, the statement that CoDriveVLM achieves the best safety performance and robustness is not supported beyond the particular logged runs.
  2. [Table II and Fig. 11] All reported results appear to come from one simulation trial per environmental setting. The '±' values in Table II are standard deviations across passenger requests within a single run, not trial-to-trial variability, so they do not quantify stochastic variation of the simulation or of the VLM. There are no reruns with different random seeds, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests. Consequently, claims such as 'best response rate and completion rate in most of the environment settings' are not backed by statistical evidence, especially where the margins over baselines are small (e.g., the 15×30 and 25×40 rows). The authors should provide multiple seeds per setting, report mean and variance across seeds, and state the number of runs.
  3. [Section VI-C and Fig. 12] The few-shot number K is selected by comparing performance on the same evaluation settings that are later used for the main comparison in Table II. For example, Fig. 12 shows that K=3 gives the best overall performance, and that value is then used in the comparative study. This constitutes test-set tuning, which can inflate the reported performance. A separate validation split or cross-validation over scenarios should be used for selecting K, or the paper should explicitly disclose that the reported numbers include hyperparameter selection on the test scenarios.
  4. [Eq. (6) and Figs. 9–10] The distance definition is inconsistent. Eq. (6) defines d_ij as the Euclidean distance between vehicle i and passenger j, but the human messages in Figs. 9 and 10 state that 'The distance matrix is calculated based on the Manhattan distance,' and the worked example in Fig. 9 uses Manhattan distances (e.g., vehicle 6 at [77.5,24.9] to passenger 17 at [106.0,50.9] yields 54.5 by Manhattan but 38.6 by Euclidean). Section VI-B also refers to 'conditional Manhattan distance' for the baseline from [47]. This inconsistency affects the reproducibility of the dispatching prompts and makes it unclear which distance the VLM actually receives, which in turn limits the comparability of the dispatching results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (2)] The notation in Eq. (2) is inconsistent: the set R includes 'Gj' in the text but the tuple lists 'Aj' twice and omits 'Gj' in the formal expression; please correct this and define all boolean flags.
  2. [Table III and Section VI-C] The ablation in Table III uses the 20-vehicle/40-request setting, but it is not stated whether this is the same single trial as in Table II or a separate run; please clarify the experimental protocol and report variability.
  3. [Section VI-A] The hardware description is unclear: 'NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU with 24 × 4 GB of graphic memory, spread across four units' should be rephrased to state the number of GPUs and their total memory per GPU.
  4. [Section V-D, Eq. (10)] The summation index in Eq. (10) is written as 'PN i=1' without defining N at that point; the sum should be over the vehicles in the subgraph, so 'Ns' or a clearly defined set should be used.
  5. [Figs. 9 and 10] Several typos appear in the reprinted prompts: 'numers' should be 'numbers', 'pasenger' should be 'passenger', 'analize' should be 'analyze', and 'spacial' should be 'spatial'.
  6. [References] The description of the 'conditional Manhattan distance' grouping baseline attributed to [47] is too sparse to be replicated; please specify the exact rule used for the baseline grouping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VLM-to-OCP/ADMM pipeline is empirical, and the paper's self-citations and K selection do not reduce the central safety claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain runs from VLM dispatching output Pτ (Eq. 8) and VLM collision-risk subgraph construction (Section V-C) into the subgraph OCP (Eq. 9), then to the consensus-ADMM updates (Eqs. 11-14, Algorithm 1). None of these steps defines one output in terms of the other by construction: the VLM subgraph output is an input to the OCP, and the distance penalty (Eqs. 19-20) is an independent evaluation of the trajectories produced. The safety claim depends on the empirical assumption that the VLM flags every pair needing collision-avoidance constraints, but that is an unverified behavioral assumption about a closed, non-deterministic model, not a definitional identity. The self-citations [25], [46], [47] supply the ADMM machinery and a prior baseline; the paper's novel contribution is the VLM-guided graph evolution, which is tested against CARLA baselines and is not merely a restatement of those citations. The few-shot memory count K is selected by inspecting Fig. 12 on the same evaluation settings, which is benchmark tuning rather than a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. Overall, no load-bearing circular reduction is present; the score of 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citation and test-set hyperparameter selection, while the missing rule-based grouping baseline is a correctness and validation gap, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities or forces. The free parameters are mostly algorithm hyperparameters and weighting constants, several of which (ADMM step sizes, communication threshold, distance normalization) are not reported in the paper. The key domain assumptions are the reliability of the VLM as a perception and grouping oracle, the fidelity of CARLA as a stand-in for real traffic, and the safety of linearized collision constraints.

free parameters (8)
  • Q and R diagonal weighting matrices in Eq. (10) = Not stated
    Hand-selected weights balancing path tracking against control effort in the OCP objective.
  • wdis slack factor in Section V-B = 1.2
    Used to decide when to interpolate additional waypoints along the reference path.
  • omega weighting in Eq. (7) = 0.5
    Balances image and text embedding cosine similarities during top-K memory retrieval.
  • K few-shot number = 3
    Selected by observing best response and completion performance in Fig. 12, effectively tuning on the evaluation set.
  • r_tele communication threshold in Section II = Not stated
    Defines which CAVs have edges in the subgraph and therefore which vehicles coordinate; value not reported.
  • ADMM step sizes rho, sigma, gamma in Algorithm 1 = Not stated
    Dual update step sizes that affect convergence and solution quality; values not reported.
  • dmax in Eq. (20) = Not stated
    Normalization constant for the distance penalty safety metric; value not reported.
  • vref reference velocity = 10 m/s
    Constant reference speed used in path interpolation and tracking objective.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math A* search on the waypoint graph yields a valid shortest path (Section V-B).
    Invoked to generate initial reference paths for each CAV before smoothing.
  • standard math Savitzky-Golay filtering preserves path feasibility while smoothing waypoints (Section V-B).
    Applied to the A* path to produce the refined reference path P.
  • standard math KD-tree nearest neighbor search correctly identifies the current reference waypoint (Section V-B).
    Used at each time step to query the local reference trajectory.
  • domain assumption CARLA Town10 simulation is a sufficient proxy for real urban AMoD traffic (Section VI-A).
    All conclusions about feasibility and robustness are drawn from this simulator environment.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o correctly interprets annotated BEV images and textual prompts for dispatching and collision-risk grouping (Sections IV and V-C).
    The VLM's parsed outputs P_tau and subgraph lists are used without verification against ground truth.
  • domain assumption The kinematic bicycle model accurately captures CAV motion for planning (Section VI-A, Eq. (15)).
    The OCP and ADMM updates rely on this model for state prediction.
  • domain assumption Linearized collision-avoidance constraints in the convexified OCP guarantee collision-free trajectories when executed (Section V-E).
    The Gauss-Newton linearization is used to build the LQR subproblems, but no safety margin or constraint tightening is described.
  • domain assumption BEV annotation is error-free; object IDs, positions, and colors are correctly rendered and parsed (Section IV-B2).
    The VLM's spatial reasoning depends on the fidelity of these annotations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoDriveVLM: VLM-Enhanced Urban Cooperative Dispatching and Motion Planning for Future Autonomous Mobility on Demand Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMBTWLFT

@misc{pith2026250106132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoDriveVLM: VLM-Enhanced Urban Cooperative Dispatching and Motion Planning for Future Autonomous Mobility on Demand Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMBTWLFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06132}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing demand for flexible and efficient urban transportation solutions has spotlighted the limitations of traditional Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) systems, particularly in accommodating diverse passenger needs and dynamic urban environments. Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand (AMoD) systems have emerged as a promising alternative, leveraging connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) to provide responsive and adaptable services. However, existing methods primarily focus on either vehicle scheduling or path planning, which often simplify complex urban layouts and neglect the necessity for simultaneous coordination and mutual avoidance among CAVs. This oversimplification poses significant challenges to the deployment of AMoD systems in real-world scenarios. To address these gaps, we propose CoDriveVLM, a novel framework that integrates high-fidelity simultaneous dispatching and cooperative motion planning for future AMoD systems. Our method harnesses Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to enhance multi-modality information processing, and this enables comprehensive dispatching and collision risk evaluation. The VLM-enhanced CAV dispatching coordinator is introduced to effectively manage complex and unforeseen AMoD conditions, thus supporting efficient scheduling decision-making. Furthermore, we propose a scalable decentralized cooperative motion planning method via consensus alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) focusing on collision risk evaluation and decentralized trajectory optimization. Simulation results demonstrate the feasibility and robustness of CoDriveVLM in various traffic conditions, showcasing its potential to significantly improve the fidelity and effectiveness of AMoD systems in future urban transportation networks. The code is available at https://github.com/henryhcliu/CoDriveVLM.git.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06132 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dispatching of the CAVs for the passenger requests from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall Architecture of the Proposed CoDriveVLM. This framework encompasses multiple modules, from multimodal input processing to multifunctional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Annotation illustration of the BEV image. This image aggregates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the retrieval process for CoDriveVLM. A BEV image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The structure of the parallel and cooperative motion planning algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of the environmental settings of the urban scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The traffic conditions described by the integrated BEV images in different simulation trials using our proposed CoDriveVLM method. Key elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The corresponding dialogue for the dispatching decision at the traffic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The distance penalty during the cooperative dispatching and motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The corresponding dialogue for the dispatching decision at the traffic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The impact of the memory module and the few-shot number to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. DSDrive: Distilling Large Language Model for Lightweight End-to-End Autonomous Driving with Unified Reasoning and Planning

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 1B-parameter model distilled from a large vision-language model's reasoning, with waypoints shared between reasoning and planning heads, matches a 7B system on several CARLA routes.

  2. VLM-UDMC: VLM-Enhanced Unified Decision-Making and Motion Control for Urban Autonomous Driving

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    VLM-UDMC uses a vision-language model to switch safety cost functions in a model predictive controller and a multi-kernel LSTM to predict traffic trajectories, reporting improved urban driving metrics in CARLA and cam...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [47]

    Improved con- sensus admm for cooperative motion planning of large-scale connected autonomous vehicles with limited communication,

    H. Liu, Z. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y . Li, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Improved con- sensus admm for cooperative motion planning of large-scale connected autonomous vehicles with limited communication,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pp. 1–17, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    A novel demand-responsive customized bus based on improved ant colony optimization and clustering algorithms,

    W. Shu and Y . Li, “A novel demand-responsive customized bus based on improved ant colony optimization and clustering algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 8492–8506, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Demand responsive transport: towards the emergence of a new market segment,

    J. Brake, J. D. Nelson, and S. Wright, “Demand responsive transport: towards the emergence of a new market segment,” Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 323–337, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    A survey on demand-responsive public bus systems,

    P. Vansteenwegen, L. Melis, D. Aktas ¸, B. D. G. Montenegro, F. S. Vieira, and K. S ¨orensen, “A survey on demand-responsive public bus systems,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 137, p. 103573, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Joint optimization of running route and scheduling for the mixed demand responsive feeder transit with time-dependent travel times,

    Z. Wang, J. Yu, W. Hao, and J. Xiang, “Joint optimization of running route and scheduling for the mixed demand responsive feeder transit with time-dependent travel times,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2498–2509, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    BEV-V2X: Cooperative birds-eye-view fusion and grid occupancy pre- diction via V2X-based data sharing,

    C. Chang, J. Zhang, K. Zhang, W. Zhong, X. Peng, S. Li, and L. Li, “BEV-V2X: Cooperative birds-eye-view fusion and grid occupancy pre- diction via V2X-based data sharing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 4498–4514, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Edge- enabled V2X service placement for intelligent transportation systems,

    A. Moubayed, A. Shami, P. Heidari, A. Larabi, and R. Brunner, “Edge- enabled V2X service placement for intelligent transportation systems,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1380–1392, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    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, pp. 17853–17862, 2023

    2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Integrated behavior planning and motion control for autonomous vehicles with traffic rules compliance,

    H. Liu, K. Chen, Y . Li, Z. Huang, J. Duan, and J. Ma, “Integrated behavior planning and motion control for autonomous vehicles with traffic rules compliance,” in the Proceedings of 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics , pp. 1995–2002, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Mechanism design for mobility- as-a-service platform considering travelers’ strategic behavior and mul- tidimensional requirements,

    X. Ding, Q. Qi, S. Jian, and H. Yang, “Mechanism design for mobility- as-a-service platform considering travelers’ strategic behavior and mul- tidimensional requirements,” Transportation Research Part B: Method- ological, vol. 173, pp. 1–30, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Electric autonomous mobility- on-demand: Jointly optimal vehicle design and fleet operation,

    F. Paparella, T. Hofman, and M. Salazar, “Electric autonomous mobility- on-demand: Jointly optimal vehicle design and fleet operation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Dynamic demand estimation for an AMoD system in paris,

    S. H ¨orl, M. Balac, and K. W. Axhausen, “Dynamic demand estimation for an AMoD system in paris,” in the Proceedings of 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, pp. 260–266, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    Rebalancing of one-way car-sharing systems considering elastic demand and waiting time,

    G. Guo and Y . Hou, “Rebalancing of one-way car-sharing systems considering elastic demand and waiting time,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 23295–23310, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Recent advances in demand responsive transport: Opportunities with autonomous bus service-a system-of-systems overview,

    S. Fadleseed, P. Sarhadi, S. Ramalingam, H. Gan, P. Kourtessis, G. Jack- man, A. Sanchez, J. G. Tena, J. West, J. Holland,et al., “Recent advances in demand responsive transport: Opportunities with autonomous bus service-a system-of-systems overview,” 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Regulating mobility-on-demand services: Tri-level model and bayesian optimization solution approach,

    F. Dandl, R. Engelhardt, M. Hyland, G. Tilg, K. Bogenberger, and H. S. Mahmassani, “Regulating mobility-on-demand services: Tri-level model and bayesian optimization solution approach,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 125, p. 103075, 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Hybrid multi- agent deep reinforcement learning for autonomous mobility on demand systems,

    T. Enders, J. Harrison, M. Pavone, and M. Schiffer, “Hybrid multi- agent deep reinforcement learning for autonomous mobility on demand systems,” in the Proceedings of Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, pp. 1284–1296, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    A robust and constrained multi-agent reinforcement learning electric vehicle rebalancing method in amod systems,

    S. He, Y . Wang, S. Han, S. Zou, and F. Miao, “A robust and constrained multi-agent reinforcement learning electric vehicle rebalancing method in amod systems,” in the Proceedings of 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 5637–5644, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Data-driven model predictive control of autonomous mobility-on- demand systems,

    R. Iglesias, F. Rossi, K. Wang, D. Hallac, J. Leskovec, and M. Pavone, “Data-driven model predictive control of autonomous mobility-on- demand systems,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 6019–6025, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    An LLM-driven framework for multiple-vehicle dispatching and navigation in smart city landscapes,

    R. Chen, W. Song, W. Zu, Z. Dong, Z. Guo, F. Sun, Z. Tian, and J. Wang, “An LLM-driven framework for multiple-vehicle dispatching and navigation in smart city landscapes,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 2147–2153, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Model predictive control of ride-sharing autonomous mobility-on- demand systems,

    M. Tsao, D. Milojevic, C. Ruch, M. Salazar, E. Frazzoli, and M. Pavone, “Model predictive control of ride-sharing autonomous mobility-on- demand systems,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 6665–6671, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Learning to operate a fleet of cars,

    C. Fluri, C. Ruch, J. Zilly, J. Hakenberg, and E. Frazzoli, “Learning to operate a fleet of cars,” in 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, pp. 2292–2298, IEEE, 2019. 16

    2019

  14. [21]

    V oxPoser: Composable 3D value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “V oxPoser: Composable 3D value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,” in the Proceedings of Conference on Robot Learning, pp. 540– 562, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    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, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    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

  17. [24]

    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 the Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pp. 958–979, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    LMMCoDrive: Cooperative driving with large multimodal model,

    H. Liu, R. Yao, Z. Huang, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “LMMCoDrive: Cooperative driving with large multimodal model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11981, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    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

  20. [27]

    T-share: A large-scale dynamic taxi ridesharing service,

    S. Ma, Y . Zheng, and O. Wolfson, “T-share: A large-scale dynamic taxi ridesharing service,” in 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 410–421, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  21. [28]

    A unified approach to route planning for shared mobility,

    Y . Tong, Y . Zeng, Z. Zhou, L. Chen, J. Ye, and K. Xu, “A unified approach to route planning for shared mobility,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 1633, 2018

    2018

  22. [29]

    Optimal online dispatch for high- capacity shared autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,

    C. Li, D. Parker, and Q. Hao, “Optimal online dispatch for high- capacity shared autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 779– 785, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assign- ment,

    J. Alonso-Mora, S. Samaranayake, A. Wallar, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus, “On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assign- ment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 462–467, 2017

    2017

  24. [31]

    Multi- vehicle motion planning for social optimal mobility-on-demand,

    J. Karlsson, C.-I. Vasile, J. Tumova, S. Karaman, and D. Rus, “Multi- vehicle motion planning for social optimal mobility-on-demand,” in the Proceedings of 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 7298–7305, 2018

    2018

  25. [32]

    Parallel optimization with hard safety constraints for cooperative planning of connected autonomous vehicles,

    Z. Huang, H. Liu, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Parallel optimization with hard safety constraints for cooperative planning of connected autonomous vehicles,” in the Proceedings of 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 2238–2244, 2024

    2024

  26. [33]

    Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives,

    S. Teng, X. Hu, P. Deng, B. Li, Y . Li, Y . Ai, D. Yang, L. Li, Z. Xuanyuan, F. Zhu, et al., “Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Towards socially responsive autonomous vehicles: A reinforcement learning framework with driving priors and coordination awareness,

    J. Liu, D. Zhou, P. Hang, Y . Ni, and J. Sun, “Towards socially responsive autonomous vehicles: A reinforcement learning framework with driving priors and coordination awareness,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2023

    2023

  28. [35]

    PRIMAL: Pathfinding via reinforcement and imitation multi-agent learning,

    G. Sartoretti, J. Kerr, Y . Shi, G. Wagner, T. S. Kumar, S. Koenig, and H. Choset, “PRIMAL: Pathfinding via reinforcement and imitation multi-agent learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2378–2385, 2019

    2019

  29. [36]

    PRIMAL 2: Pathfind- ing via reinforcement and imitation multi-agent learning-lifelong,

    M. Damani, Z. Luo, E. Wenzel, and G. Sartoretti, “PRIMAL 2: Pathfind- ing via reinforcement and imitation multi-agent learning-lifelong,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2666–2673, 2021

    2021

  30. [37]

    Solving a multi-robot search problem with bionic SARSA algorithm and artificial potential field,

    H. Liu, Z. Qu, and R. Zhu, “Solving a multi-robot search problem with bionic SARSA algorithm and artificial potential field,” in the Proceedings of 2021 China Automation Congress, pp. 1830–1835, 2021

    2021

  31. [38]

    Cooperative behavior planning for automated driving using graph neural networks,

    M. Klimke, B. V ¨olz, and M. Buchholz, “Cooperative behavior planning for automated driving using graph neural networks,” in the Proceedings of 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium , pp. 167–174, 2022

    2022

  32. [39]

    Coordination for connected and autonomous vehicles at unsignalized intersections: An iterative learning based collision-free motion planning method,

    B. Wang, X. Gong, Y . Wang, P. Lyu, and S. Liang, “Coordination for connected and autonomous vehicles at unsignalized intersections: An iterative learning based collision-free motion planning method,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Sustainability opportunities and ethical challenges of AI-enabled con- nected autonomous vehicles routing in urban areas,

    R. Guo, M. Vallati, Y . Wang, H. Zhang, Y . Chen, and F.-Y . Wang, “Sustainability opportunities and ethical challenges of AI-enabled con- nected autonomous vehicles routing in urban areas,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2023

    2023

  34. [41]

    Optimization-based trajectory planning for autonomous parking with irregularly placed obstacles: A lightweight iterative frame- work,

    B. Li, T. Acarman, Y . Zhang, Y . Ouyang, C. Yaman, Q. Kong, X. Zhong, and X. Peng, “Optimization-based trajectory planning for autonomous parking with irregularly placed obstacles: A lightweight iterative frame- work,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ...

    2022

  35. [42]

    GPU-parallelized iterative LQR with input constraints for fast collision avoidance of autonomous vehicles,

    Y . Lee, M. Cho, and K.-S. Kim, “GPU-parallelized iterative LQR with input constraints for fast collision avoidance of autonomous vehicles,” in the Proceedings of 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 4797–4804, 2022

    2022

  36. [43]

    Autonomous driving motion plan- ning with constrained iterative LQR,

    J. Chen, W. Zhan, and M. Tomizuka, “Autonomous driving motion plan- ning with constrained iterative LQR,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 244–254, 2019

    2019

  37. [44]

    Alternat- ing direction method of multipliers for constrained iterative LQR in autonomous driving,

    J. Ma, Z. Cheng, X. Zhang, M. Tomizuka, and T. H. Lee, “Alternat- ing direction method of multipliers for constrained iterative LQR in autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 23031–23042, 2022

    2022

  38. [45]

    Local learning enabled iterative linear quadratic regulator for constrained tra- jectory planning,

    J. Ma, Z. Cheng, X. Zhang, Z. Lin, F. L. Lewis, and T. H. Lee, “Local learning enabled iterative linear quadratic regulator for constrained tra- jectory planning,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 5354–5365, 2023

    2023

  39. [46]

    Decentralized iLQR for cooperative trajectory planning of connected autonomous vehicles via dual consensus ADMM,

    Z. Huang, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Decentralized iLQR for cooperative trajectory planning of connected autonomous vehicles via dual consensus ADMM,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 12754–12766, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Recent surge in public interest in transportation: Senti- ment analysis of Baidu Apollo Go using Weibo data,

    S. Wang, Z. Zhao, Y . Xie, M. Ma, Z. Chen, Z. Wang, B. Su, W. Xu, and T. Li, “Recent surge in public interest in transportation: Senti- ment analysis of Baidu Apollo Go using Weibo data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10088, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    DriveVLM: The convergence of autonomous 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 autonomous driving and large vision-language models,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 8748–8763, PMLR, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    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. 24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    A simple method for reconstructing a high-quality NDVI time-series data set based on the Savitzky–Golay filter,

    J. Chen, P. J ¨onsson, M. Tamura, Z. Gu, B. Matsushita, and L. Eklundh, “A simple method for reconstructing a high-quality NDVI time-series data set based on the Savitzky–Golay filter,” Remote Sensing of Envi- ronment, vol. 91, no. 3-4, pp. 332–344, 2004

    2004

  45. [53]

    Revisiting kd-tree for nearest neighbor search,

    P. Ram and K. Sinha, “Revisiting kd-tree for nearest neighbor search,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pp. 1378–1388, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Distributed and constrained H2 control design via system level synthesis and dual consensus ADMM,

    P. D. Grontas, M. W. Fisher, and F. D ¨orfler, “Distributed and constrained H2 control design via system level synthesis and dual consensus ADMM,” in the Proceedings of 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 301–307, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,” in the Proceedings of Conference on Robot Learning , pp. 1–16, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Control-limited differential dynamic programming,

    Y . Tassa, N. Mansard, and E. Todorov, “Control-limited differential dynamic programming,” in the Proceedings of 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 1168–1175, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.