arxiv: 2604.07944 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.AI· cs.SY· eess.SY

Recognition: no theorem link

On-Policy Distillation of Language Models for Autonomous Vehicle Motion Planning

Amirhossein Afsharrad , Amirhesam Abedsoltan , Ahmadreza Moradipari , Sanjay Lall

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

keywords knowledge distillationlanguage modelsautonomous drivingmotion planningon-policy learningtrajectory generationmodel compression

0 comments

The pith

On-policy distillation transfers motion planning skills from large language models to 5x smaller students that nearly match teacher performance.

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

The paper examines how to move the ability to plan vehicle trajectories from a large language model teacher to a compact student model suitable for onboard use. It compares on-policy generalized knowledge distillation, where the student generates its own driving plans and receives token-by-token corrections from the teacher, against a reinforcement learning baseline that uses the teacher's probabilities as rewards. On real driving scenes from the nuScenes benchmark, the distilled student reaches close to the teacher's accuracy while being five times smaller and clearly beats the RL approach. This matters because large models offer strong reasoning for safe driving but cannot run on the limited hardware inside vehicles. A sympathetic reader sees a concrete path to practical deployment of language-model planners.

Core claim

By training the student model exclusively on the trajectories it generates itself and supplying dense per-token feedback from the teacher, on-policy generalized knowledge distillation enables the smaller model to learn chain-of-thought waypoint prediction for driving scenes, resulting in performance that substantially exceeds the reinforcement-learning baseline and approaches that of the full-sized teacher.

What carries the argument

On-policy generalized knowledge distillation, in which the student is updated using only its own self-generated outputs supervised by dense token-level signals from the teacher.

Load-bearing premise

Training stays stable and effective when the student sees only its own generated trajectories instead of expert demonstrations or mixed data.

What would settle it

A clear drop in trajectory accuracy, higher collision rates, or failure to approach teacher performance on held-out nuScenes scenes after GKD training would show the method does not work as claimed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07944 by Ahmadreza Moradipari, Amirhesam Abedsoltan, Amirhossein Afsharrad, Sanjay Lall.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Qualitative trajectory comparison on a scenario where the ego vehicle executes a left turn. The ego vehicle is represented by the black box at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong potential for autonomous vehicle motion planning by reformulating trajectory prediction as a language generation problem. However, deploying capable LLMs in resource-constrained onboard systems remains a fundamental challenge. In this paper, we study how to effectively transfer motion planning knowledge from a large teacher LLM to a smaller, more deployable student model. We build on the GPT-Driver framework, which represents driving scenes as language prompts and generates waypoint trajectories with chain-of-thought reasoning, and investigate two student training paradigms: (i) on-policy generalized knowledge distillation (GKD), which trains the student on its own self-generated outputs using dense token-level feedback from the teacher, and (ii) a dense-feedback reinforcement learning (RL) baseline that uses the teacher's log-probabilities as per-token reward signals in a policy gradient framework. Experiments on the nuScenes benchmark show that GKD substantially outperforms the RL baseline and closely approaches teacher-level performance despite a 5$\times$ reduction in model size. These results highlight the practical value of on-policy distillation as a principled and effective approach to deploying LLM-based planners in autonomous driving systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

GKD beats the RL baseline for shrinking GPT-Driver planners on nuScenes but the missing training details leave the stability of the on-policy setup unconvincing.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper reports a clear empirical win for on-policy generalized knowledge distillation over a dense-feedback RL baseline when shrinking a GPT-Driver style LLM planner to one-fifth the size while staying close to teacher performance on nuScenes. The direct head-to-head is the useful part. They train the student exclusively on its own generated trajectories with per-token teacher signals, and GKD pulls ahead without needing the full teacher at inference time. That addresses a real deployment constraint for onboard AV systems, and sticking to an existing benchmark and framework keeps the claim grounded rather than inflated. The size reduction result itself is the kind of practical data point that matters for people trying to move these models out of simulation. Credit to the authors for running the comparison at all instead of just claiming distillation works in theory. The soft spots sit in the experimental reporting. The description gives no sign of KL regularization, entropy terms, replay buffers, or other standard guards against compounding errors in on-policy training, yet those are exactly the things that often cause divergence or mode collapse when the student distribution drifts. Without ablations, hyperparameter sweeps, or even basic statistical tests on multiple seeds, it is hard to tell whether the reported gap is robust or tied to a lucky training run. The abstract states the outcomes cleanly but leaves the implementation choices opaque, which undercuts how much weight the numbers can carry right now. This is for researchers already working on LLM-based motion planning who need smaller models for real hardware. A reader who knows the GPT-Driver setup or has tried distillation on sequential tasks will get the most out of the comparison. It is not a broad theoretical advance, but the targeted empirical question is timely enough that it deserves a serious referee to push for the missing details on stability and reproducibility. I would send it to peer review with a request for those specifics rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes on-policy generalized knowledge distillation (GKD) to transfer knowledge from a large teacher LLM to a smaller student model for autonomous vehicle motion planning within the GPT-Driver framework. It contrasts GKD, which trains the student on its own self-generated outputs using dense token-level teacher feedback, against a dense-feedback RL baseline that treats teacher log-probabilities as per-token rewards. Experiments on the nuScenes benchmark indicate that GKD substantially outperforms the RL baseline and approaches teacher-level performance despite a 5× model size reduction.

Significance. If the results hold under rigorous evaluation, the work would demonstrate that on-policy distillation offers a stable and effective alternative to RL for compressing LLM-based motion planners, enabling practical deployment in resource-constrained autonomous driving systems. This could inform efficient knowledge transfer techniques in safety-critical robotics applications.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central performance claims (GKD substantially outperforms RL baseline and approaches teacher performance) are stated without any implementation details, hyperparameter choices, number of runs, statistical tests, or ablation results, rendering the headline result difficult to evaluate or reproduce from the provided text.
[§3 (Method)] §3 (Method): The on-policy GKD formulation trains exclusively on self-generated trajectories with dense teacher feedback but provides no description of regularization (e.g., KL penalty), entropy bonuses, or replay mechanisms to address distribution shift. This is load-bearing for the stability assumption underlying the reported gains over the RL baseline.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The '5× reduction in model size' claim should include the exact parameter counts of the teacher and student models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central performance claims (GKD substantially outperforms RL baseline and approaches teacher performance) are stated without any implementation details, hyperparameter choices, number of runs, statistical tests, or ablation results, rendering the headline result difficult to evaluate or reproduce from the provided text.

Authors: We agree that the abstract presents the headline claims in a concise manner without accompanying experimental specifics. To address this, we will revise the abstract to include brief references to the number of runs, key aspects of the experimental protocol, and a note directing readers to the detailed hyperparameters, statistical analyses, and ablations in Sections 3 and 4 as well as the appendix. This will improve evaluability while respecting abstract length limits. revision: yes
Referee: [§3 (Method)] §3 (Method): The on-policy GKD formulation trains exclusively on self-generated trajectories with dense teacher feedback but provides no description of regularization (e.g., KL penalty), entropy bonuses, or replay mechanisms to address distribution shift. This is load-bearing for the stability assumption underlying the reported gains over the RL baseline.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that §3 does not explicitly describe regularization techniques or mechanisms for handling distribution shift. We will revise §3 to add a paragraph detailing the on-policy training setup, confirming that no KL penalty, entropy bonuses, or replay buffers were used, and explaining the role of dense token-level feedback in maintaining stability. We will also incorporate supporting evidence from training dynamics to substantiate the stability of the reported results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain present; purely empirical evaluation on external benchmark

full rationale

The paper describes two training paradigms (on-policy GKD and dense-feedback RL) and reports experimental results on the nuScenes benchmark. No equations, derivations, or first-principles claims are made. All performance numbers are measured quantities against an external dataset and teacher model, not defined in terms of fitted parameters or self-referential quantities. Building on the GPT-Driver framework is a standard citation to prior work and does not reduce the central empirical claim to a self-citation or input by construction. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical derivations, free parameters, or invented entities are present in the abstract; the work is an empirical comparison of training methods on an existing benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5525 in / 992 out tokens · 39553 ms · 2026-05-10T17:49:28.201608+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Preference-Based Self-Distillation: Beyond KL Matching via Reward Regularization
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

PBSD derives a reward-reweighted teacher distribution as the analytic optimum of a reward-regularized objective, yielding better stability and performance than KL-based self-distillation on math reasoning and tool-use tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

[1]

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, pp. 1805–1824, 2000

2000
[2]

Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the urban challenge,

C. Urmson, J. Anhalt, H. Bae, J. A. Bagnell, C. R. Baker, R. E. Bittner, T. Brown, M. N. Clark, M. Darms, D. Demitrish, J. M. Dolan, D. Duggins, D. Ferguson, T. Galatali, C. M. Geyer, M. Gittleman, S. Harbaugh, M. Hebert, T. M. Howard, S. Kolski, M. Likhachev, B. Litkouhi, A. Kelly, M. McNaughton, N. Miller, J. Nickolaou, K. Pe- terson, B. Pilnick, R. Raj...

2008
[3]

Predict- ing parameters for modeling traffic participants,

A. Moradipari, S. Bae, M. Alizadeh, E. M. Pari, and D. Isele, “Predict- ing parameters for modeling traffic participants,” inProceedings of the 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2022, pp. 703–708

2022
[4]

ST-P3: End-to-end vision-based autonomous driving via spatial-temporal feature learning,

S. Hu, L. Chen, P. Wu, H. Li, J. Yan, and D. Tao, “ST-P3: End-to-end vision-based autonomous driving via spatial-temporal feature learning,” inProc. ECCV, 2022, pp. 533–549

2022
[5]

Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang, L. Lu, X. Jia, Q. Liu, J. Dai, Y . Qiao, and H. Li, “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” inProc. CVPR, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

2023
[6]

Multi-agent stage-wise conservative linear bandits,

A. Afsharrad, A. Moradipari, and S. Lall, “Multi-agent stage-wise conservative linear bandits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00602, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Cooperative multi-agent constrained stochastic linear bandits,

A. Afsharrad, P. Oftadeh, A. Moradipari, and S. Lall, “Cooperative multi-agent constrained stochastic linear bandits,” inProceedings of the 2025 American Control Conference (ACC), 2025, pp. 3614–3621

2025
[8]

Stage-wise conservative linear bandits,

A. Moradipari, C. Thrampoulidis, and M. Alizadeh, “Stage-wise conservative linear bandits,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 11 191–11 201, 2020

2020
[9]

Generalizable spacecraft trajectory generation via multimodal learning with transformers,

D. Celestini, A. Afsharrad, D. Gammelli, T. Guffanti, G. Zardini, S. Lall, E. Capello, S. D’Amico, and M. Pavone, “Generalizable spacecraft trajectory generation via multimodal learning with transformers,” in Proceedings of the 2025 American Control Conference (ACC), 2025, pp. 3558–3565

2025
[10]

Convex methods for constrained linear bandits,

A. Afsharrad, A. Moradipari, and S. Lall, “Convex methods for constrained linear bandits,” inProceedings of the 2024 European Control Conference (ECC), 2024, pp. 2111–2118

2024
[11]

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, T. Gao, E. Li, K. Tang, Z. Cao, T. Zhou, A. Liu, X. Yan, S. Mei, J. Cao, Z. Wang, and C. Zheng, “A survey on multimodal large language models for autonomous driving,” inProc. WACV Workshops, 2024, pp. 958–979

2024
[12]

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

work page arXiv 2023
[13]

Languagempc: Large language models as deci- sion makers for autonomous driving,

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

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

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,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07162, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[15]

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
[16]

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,” inNeurIPS F oundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2023

2023
[17]

Enhancing physics- informed neural networks through feature engineering,

S. Fazliani, Z. Frangella, and M. Udell, “Enhancing physics- informed neural networks through feature engineering,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07209, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

Turbocharging gaussian process inference with approximate sketch-and-project,

P. Rathore, Z. Frangella, S. Garg, S. Fazliani, M. Derezi ´nski, and M. Udell, “Turbocharging Gaussian process inference with approximate sketch-and-project,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13723, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[20]

A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in Proc. AISTATS, 2011, pp. 627–635

2011
[21]

On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes,

R. Agarwal, N. Vieillard, Y . Zhou, P. Stanczyk, S. Ramos, M. Geist, and O. Bachem, “On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes,” inProc. ICLR, 2024

2024
[22]

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,” inProc. CVPR, 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

2020
[23]

Self-Distilled Reasoner: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Large Language Models

S. Zhao, Z. Xie, M. Liu, J. Huang, G. Pang, F. Chen, and A. Grover, “Self-distilled reasoner: On-policy self-distillation for large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18734, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026
[24]

Sequence-level knowledge distillation,

Y . Kim and A. M. Rush, “Sequence-level knowledge distillation,” in Proc. EMNLP, 2016, pp. 1317–1327

2016
[25]

Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. L. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, J. Schulman, J. Hilton, F. Kelton, L. Miller, M. Simens, A. Askell, P. Welinder, P. Christiano, J. Leike, and R. Lowe, “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” inProc. NeurIPS, 2022, pp. 27 730–27 744

2022
[26]

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, X. Bi, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and D. Guo, “DeepSeekMath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[27]

MiniLLM: Knowledge distillation of large language models,

Y . Gu, L. Dong, F. Wei, and M. Huang, “MiniLLM: Knowledge distillation of large language models,” inProc. ICLR, 2024

2024
[28]

Qwen3 Technical Report

A. Yang, A. Li, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Gao, C. Huang, C. Lv, C. Zheng, D. Liu, F. Zhou, F. Huang, F. Hu, H. Ge, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Tang, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, L. Deng, M. Li, M. Xue, M. Li, P. Zhang, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Gao, S. Liu, S. Luo, T. ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[29]

TRL: Transformer reinforcement learning,

L. von Werra, Y . Belkada, L. Tunstall, E. Beeching, T. Thrush, N. Lambert, S. Huang, K. Rasul, and Q. Gallou´edec, “TRL: Transformer reinforcement learning,” https://github.com/huggingface/trl, 2020

2020
[30]

LlamaFactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,

Y . Zheng, R. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Ye, Z. Luo, Z. Feng, and Y . Ma, “LlamaFactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,” inProc. ACL, 2024, pp. 400–410

2024