Structured Prompting and Multi-Agent Knowledge Distillation for Traffic Video Interpretation and Risk Inference

Jidong J. Yang; Ningning Xu; Yunxiang Yang

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 28 references

Structured Prompting and Multi-Agent Knowledge Distillation for Traffic Video Interpretation and Risk Inference

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compact 3B model, VISTA, distills GPT-4o and o3-mini into risk-aware traffic captions.

desk verdict Reasonable distillation-for-traffic-risk engineering, but the abstract's 'risk-aware' claim is unsupported by the metrics shown; unverdictable until the full evaluation is readable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13439 v1 pith:6DGBQJ6U submitted 2025-08-19 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CLeess.IV

Yunxiang Yang , Ningning Xu , Jidong J. Yang This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CLeess.IV

keywords trafficvideounderstandingrisk-awarecaptioningknowledgedistillationstructuredpromptingchain-of-thoughtvision-languagemodelsedgedeploymentlow-resolution

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 tries to establish that a small vision-language model can learn complex traffic-scene understanding and risk inference from much larger teacher models. It trains VISTA, a 3B-scale student, on pseudo-annotations generated by GPT-4o and o3-mini through structured chain-of-thought prompting, then claims the student produces semantically faithful, risk-aware captions on low-resolution traffic videos. If true, this would make real-time traffic risk monitoring feasible on edge devices without large infrastructure. The supporting evidence is a comparison against the teachers on standard captioning metrics, which measures imitation fidelity as much as risk understanding.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a two-stage pipeline: structured Chain-of-Thought prompting orchestrates GPT-4o and o3-mini as a multi-agent pair that produces knowledge-enriched pseudo-annotations, and those annotations are used for supervised fine-tuning of a compact 3B-scale student VLM, VISTA. The work of this machinery is to compress the teachers' reasoning into weights small enough for edge deployment while retaining captioning performance.

What would settle it

Take the same low-resolution highway clips used in the paper, have independent human traffic-safety experts write risk annotations and descriptions of critical events, and then measure whether VISTA's captions match those human annotations on risk-relevant content. If VISTA still scores well on the paper's captioning metrics but misses the risk events that humans flag, the risk-inference claim fails even though the metric comparison passes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that structured multi-agent knowledge distillation can transfer high-level traffic reasoning from large proprietary vision-language models into a 3B-scale model that runs efficiently on edge hardware. Using a structured Chain-of-Thought strategy, GPT-4o and o3-mini jointly generate rich captions that describe highway scenes and contextual risk; these captions serve as knowledge-enriched pseudo-annotations for supervised fine-tuning. The resulting model, VISTA, is claimed to understand low-resolution traffic videos and produce semantically faithful, risk-aware captions, matching its teachers on BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr despite far fewer parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that VISTA is semantically faithful and risk-aware rests on the assumption that BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr scores against teacher-written reference captions actually measure semantic understanding and risk inference, and that the teachers' pseudo-annotations are trustworthy enough to serve as ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Edge devices could run real-time traffic risk monitoring with only a 3B-parameter model, avoiding cloud dependence and infrastructure upgrades.
Structured prompting of large VLMs can replace expensive manual annotation for generating traffic-scene training data.
Multi-agent distillation can transfer complex reasoning into a compact student, suggesting the approach extends to other video-understanding tasks.
Low-resolution video input, if usable, would reduce bandwidth and storage needs for roadside sensors.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported metrics compare the student against the teachers that wrote its training captions, so high scores may mostly show imitation fidelity; a human-annotated risk-event evaluation would test the risk-inference claim more directly.
If the two teachers share correlated blind spots, distillation inherits them; adversarial rare traffic events could expose failure modes hidden by average captioning scores.
The pipeline could be extended from descriptive risk captioning to predictive risk forecasting by using future-event labels in the pseudo-annotations.
A held-out test set with independent human expert captions, rather than teacher-generated references, would give a stronger measure of whether the distilled knowledge generalizes beyond the teachers.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is a reasonable applied combination—distilling structured CoT outputs from two large VLMs into a 3B student for traffic-video risk captioning—but the abstract alone does not back the "risk-aware" claim, and the full text arrived as unreadable mojibake, so I can't check whether the real evaluation is there. Unverdictable, not a rejection.

What's new: the exact VISTA system and the domain application. Distillation from large VLMs and structured prompting are established pieces; putting them together for low-resolution traffic video risk inference, with an edge-deployable 3B student, is a legitimate, possibly useful engineering step. If the evaluation holds, it's a decent ITS result.

What the paper does well, as far as I can see: the pipeline is coherent and the motivation (edge risk monitoring without cloud) is concrete. The multi-agent structured CoT design is a plausible way to get richer pseudo-labels than a single teacher.

Soft spots, in order of weight. First, the metrics mismatch: BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr measure n-gram overlap, not whether a caption identifies the actual hazard. A caption can match the reference phrasing while missing the risk, or name the risk in different words and score poorly. So the listed metrics don't justify "semantically faithful, risk-aware captions" as asserted. Second, the circularity concern is real: if the test references are also teacher-generated, the student's scores show how well it imitates its teachers, not how well it understands traffic risk. Comparing student to teacher on a shared test set is fine; using teacher outputs as ground truth for both training and reference is not. Third, the abstract names no independent baselines, and no code/data/weights are mentioned. All three are flags, not confirmed flaws—there might be proper human evaluation or an independent risk-labeled set in the full text. But with the text unreadable, I can't clear them.

Who this is for: readers working on VLM distillation for autonomous driving or ITS who want a concrete engineering demonstration. It's not a scientific breakthrough.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious referee needs to dig into the evaluation setup and the risk-label provenance. If the authors can show independent evaluation of risk correctness, the paper is publishable as an application; if not, the headline claim collapses. My own verdict is skeptical but open.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a structured prompting and multi-agent knowledge distillation framework for traffic video interpretation. Two large vision-language models, GPT-4o and o3-mini, generate knowledge-enriched pseudo-annotations for traffic scenes and risk assessments via a structured Chain-of-Thought strategy; these pseudo-annotations are used to fine-tune a compact 3B-parameter student vision-language model named VISTA. The abstract claims that VISTA generates 'semantically faithful, risk-aware captions' and achieves strong performance on captioning metrics (BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, CIDEr) when benchmarked against its teacher models. The full text provided is almost entirely unreadable encoding-corrupted mojibake, so the detailed methodology, dataset construction, experimental setup, and additional results could not be independently verified.

Significance. If the claims were properly supported, the paper would address a practically relevant problem: distilling complex visual reasoning from large VLMs into a small model suitable for edge deployment in traffic risk monitoring. The idea of using structured multi-agent prompting with GPT-4o and o3-mini to generate training data is timely and potentially useful. However, the evidence presented in the abstract does not support the central claim of 'semantically faithful, risk-aware' captioning. The named metrics are lexical-overlap measures, not measures of risk correctness, and the comparison to the teachers that generated the training labels is at risk of circularity. The paper currently lacks independent, risk-grounded evaluation. No code, data, or human-evaluation protocol is mentioned in the abstract, and the unreadable full text prevents checking whether such evidence exists elsewhere. The contribution is therefore plausible but unverified.

major comments (2)

[Abstract (evaluation)] The paper trains the student on teacher-generated pseudo-annotations and then 'benchmarks' it against the same teacher models. If the test-set reference captions are also teacher-generated, then the reported BLEU/CIDEr scores measure how closely the student imitates its teachers, not whether the captions are semantically faithful or risk-correct. The abstract does not clarify whether references are teacher-written or derived from an independent source. The authors should state the exact provenance of the test references, and preferably add human-authored references or external benchmarks. Without this, the evaluation is circular with respect to the risk-awareness claim.
[Full text] The submitted full text is unreadable: it consists of encoding-corrupted mojibake in the provided version. None of the sections, equations, tables, or figures can be inspected. This prevents verification of the dataset, the prompting template, the distillation procedure, the fine-tuning details, the statistical significance of results, and any additional evaluations. The manuscript cannot be properly reviewed in this form. This is a blocking issue that must be fixed by providing a clean, readable PDF or source text.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The phrase '3B-scale model' is imprecise. Specify the exact parameter count and base architecture (e.g., which VLM backbone is fine-tuned) so the contribution to efficient deployment is assessable.
[Abstract] The phrase 'when benchmarked against its teacher models' is ambiguous. State clearly whether the benchmark references are teacher outputs, human captions, or a separate test set with known ground truth, and how the comparison is configured.
[Abstract] The claim of 'real-time risk monitoring' on edge devices is not supported by any latency, throughput, or hardware benchmark mentioned in the abstract. If such experiments exist in the full text, they should be highlighted; otherwise, this claim should be softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; teacher-relative evaluation is a validity concern, not a derivation-level circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent: GPT-4o and o3-mini produce knowledge-enriched pseudo-annotations; VISTA is supervised fine-tuned on them; and VISTA is then evaluated with captioning metrics. From the abstract alone I cannot verify whether the test-reference captions are teacher-generated or independently human-generated, and the full text is not decodable in the provided form. If the test references are held-out teacher outputs, the benchmark would be a standard knowledge-distillation evaluation—measuring whether a small student can imitate a large teacher on unseen videos—which is an empirical generalization claim, not an identity by construction. The lack of an independent risk ground truth is a genuine limitation for the 'risk-aware' interpretation, but that is a question of external validity and metric choice, not a circular derivation. No self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or definitional equation appears in the available text. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited with the required evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on three things the reader does not get from the abstract: (1) that the teacher outputs used as pseudo-annotations are correct enough to be training targets, with no human verification described; (2) that BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr scores capture semantic faithfulness and risk-awareness, which is doubtful for n-gram metrics; (3) that a 3B student can absorb the teachers' reasoning through supervised text fine-tuning. All three are domain assumptions; none is derived or externally benchmarked in the abstract.

free parameters (3)

Structured CoT prompt template
The 'structured Chain-of-Thought strategy' (abstract) is a hand-designed prompt whose exact stages and wording are not given in the abstract. It controls the quality of the pseudo-annotations that the whole pipeline depends on.
Teacher model choices (GPT-4o, o3-mini)
Selection of which VLMs produce the pseudo-annotations is a hand-made design choice; the abstract gives no comparison to alternative teacher choices.
Student scale (3B parameters) and fine-tuning setup
The abstract names the 3B scale but no training hyperparameters, loss weighting, or dataset size; these determine whether the claimed distillation works.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Teacher-generated pseudo-annotations from GPT-4o and o3-mini are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for student training.
The whole pipeline treats teacher outputs as 'knowledge-enriched pseudo-annotations' (abstract). No human verification of annotation correctness is mentioned in the abstract.
domain assumption BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr capture semantic faithfulness and risk-awareness.
The abstract supports 'semantically faithful, risk-aware captions' only with these n-gram overlap metrics, which are insensitive to semantic correctness and risk-event content.
domain assumption A 3B-scale student can absorb the teachers' reasoning through supervised fine-tuning on text outputs.
This is the distillation hypothesis itself; the abstract provides no mechanism beyond reported metric scores.

invented entities (1)

VISTA (3B-parameter student vision-language model)
purpose: On-device traffic video captioning and risk inference
The abstract reports no released weights, code, or API endpoint. The only evidence offered is metric scores inside the paper itself, so there is no falsifiable handle external to the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structured Prompting and Multi-Agent Knowledge Distillation for Traffic Video Interpretation and Risk Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DGBQJ6U

@misc{pith2026250813439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structured Prompting and Multi-Agent Knowledge Distillation for Traffic Video Interpretation and Risk Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DGBQJ6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13439}
}

read the original abstract

Comprehensive highway scene understanding and robust traffic risk inference are vital for advancing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and autonomous driving. Traditional approaches often struggle with scalability and generalization, particularly under the complex and dynamic conditions of real-world environments. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel structured prompting and knowledge distillation framework that enables automatic generation of high-quality traffic scene annotations and contextual risk assessments. Our framework orchestrates two large Vision-Language Models (VLMs): GPT-4o and o3-mini, using a structured Chain-of-Thought (CoT) strategy to produce rich, multi-perspective outputs. These outputs serve as knowledge-enriched pseudo-annotations for supervised fine-tuning of a much smaller student VLM. The resulting compact 3B-scale model, named VISTA (Vision for Intelligent Scene and Traffic Analysis), is capable of understanding low-resolution traffic videos and generating semantically faithful, risk-aware captions. Despite its significantly reduced parameter count, VISTA achieves strong performance across established captioning metrics (BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr) when benchmarked against its teacher models. This demonstrates that effective knowledge distillation and structured multi-agent supervision can empower lightweight VLMs to capture complex reasoning capabilities. The compact architecture of VISTA facilitates efficient deployment on edge devices, enabling real-time risk monitoring without requiring extensive infrastructure upgrades.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Scenario Understanding of Traffic Scenes Through Large Visual Language Models

Jonathan Rivera, Ke Lin, and Ehsan Adeli. Scenario Understanding of Traffic Scenes Through Large Visual Language Models . In Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Semantic Understanding of Traffic Scenes with Large Vision-Language Models

Yuan Zhang, Lei Liu, Haifeng Zhang, Xin Wang, and Ming Li. Semantic Understanding of Traffic Scenes with Large Vision-Language Models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20092 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

ChatGPT Is on the Horizon: Could a Large Language Model Be All We Need for Intelligent Transportation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05382 , 2023

Dongdong Wang, Zijin Wang, Shengxuan Ding, et al. ChatGPT Is on the Horizon: Could a Large Language Model Be All We Need for Intelligent Transportation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05382 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[4]

A review of the effect of traffic and weather characteristics on road safety

Athanasios Theofilatos and George Yannis. A review of the effect of traffic and weather characteristics on road safety . Accident Analysis and Prevention , 72:244--256, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey

Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 46(8):5625--5645, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Benchmark Evaluations, Applications, and Challenges of Large Vision Language Models: A Survey

Zongxia Li, Xiyang Wu, Hongyang Du, Huy Nghiem, and Guangyao Shi. Benchmark Evaluations, Applications, and Challenges of Large Vision Language Models: A Survey . arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02189 , 2025

arXiv 2025
[7]

A Survey on Multi-Agent Foundation Models: Progress and Challenges

Hao Xu, Lin Jin, Xin Wang, Liwei Wang, and Chang Liu. A Survey on Multi-Agent Foundation Models: Progress and Challenges . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.20061 , 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Survey on Knowledge Distillation for Large Language Models: Methods, Evaluation, and Application

Chuanpeng Yang, Yao Zhu, Wang Lu, Yidong Wang, Qian Chen, Chenlong Gao, Bingjie Yan, and Yiqiang Chen. Survey on Knowledge Distillation for Large Language Models: Methods, Evaluation, and Application . ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , 2024

work page 2024

Show all 28 references

[9]

ShareGPT4Video: Improving Video Understanding and Generation with Better Captions

Kevin Kuo, Xiang Li, Zixin Li, Yuhong Kong, Hanqiu Zhang, Xiyang Wang, and Ehsan Adeli. ShareGPT4Video: Improving Video Understanding and Generation with Better Captions . In NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks Track , 2024

2024
[10]

Rehg, and Chao Zheng

Xu Cao, Tong Zhou, Yunsheng Ma, Wenqian Ye, Can Cui, Kun Tang, Zhipeng Cao, Kaizhao Liang, Ziran Wang, James M. Rehg, and Chao Zheng. MAPLM: A Real-World Large-Scale Vision-Language Benchmark for Map and Traffic Scene Understanding . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference o...

2024
[11]

Enhancing Vision-Language Models with Scene Graphs for Traffic Accident Understanding

Aaron Lohner, Francesco Compagno, Jonathan Francis, and Alessandro Oltramari. Enhancing Vision-Language Models with Scene Graphs for Traffic Accident Understanding . In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, 2024

2024
[12]

Ashqar, Taqwa I

Huthaifa I. Ashqar, Taqwa I. Alhadidi, Mohammed Elhenawy, and Nour O. Khanfar. Leveraging Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) for Enhanced Object Detection and Scene Understanding in Thermal Images for Autonomous Driving Systems . Automation , 5:508--526, 2024

2024
[13]

Towards a Multi-Agent Vision-Language System for Zero-Shot Novel Hazardous Object Detection for Autonomous Driving Safety

Shashank Shriram, Srinivasa Perisetla, Aryan Keskar, Harsha Krishnaswamy, Tonko Emil Westerhof Bossen, Andreas Møgelmose, and Ross Greer. Towards a Multi-Agent Vision-Language System for Zero-Shot Novel Hazardous Object Detection for Autonomous Driving Safety . In Proceedings ...

2024
[14]

VideoMultiAgents: A Multi-Agent Framework for Video Question Answering

Noriyuki Kugo, Xiang Li, Zixin Li, Ashish Gupta, Arpandeep Khatua, Nidhish Jain, Chaitanya Patel, Yuta Kyuragi, Yasunori Ishii, Masamoto Tanabiki, Kazuki Kozuka, and Ehsan Adeli. VideoMultiAgents: A Multi-Agent Framework for Video Question Answering . In Proceedings of the IEE...

2025
[15]

Shivakumar, Dan Roth, and Camillo J

Bowen Jiang, Zhijun Zhuang, Shreyas S. Shivakumar, Dan Roth, and Camillo J. Taylor. Multi-Agent VQA: Exploring Multi-Agent Foundation Models in Zero-Shot Visual Question Answering . arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.1478 , 2024

2024
[16]

Bhooshan and K

Reshmi S. Bhooshan and K. Suresh. A Multimodal Framework for Video Caption Generation . IEEE Access , 10:92166--92176, 2022

2022
[17]

Vision-informed Safety and Transportation Assessment (VISTA) , 2025

Yunxiang Yang. Vision-informed Safety and Transportation Assessment (VISTA) , 2025. Available at: https://github.com/winstonyang117/Vision-informed-Safety-and-Transportation-Assessment

2025
[18]

OpenAI (2023)

OpenAI . GPT-4 Technical Report . Technical report, OpenAI, 2023. Please cite as "OpenAI (2023)"

2023
[19]

J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:24824--24837, 2022

2022
[20]

ChatGPT (o3‑mini)

OpenAI. ChatGPT (o3‑mini) . In OpenAI ChatGPT Platform , Online, 2025

2025
[21]

Qwen2.5-vl technical report

Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, Humen Zhong, Yuanzhi Zhu, Mingkun Yang, Zhaohai Li, Jianqiang Wan, Pengfei Wang, Wei Ding, Zheren Fu, Yiheng Xu, Jiabo Ye, Xi Zhang, Tianbao Xie, Zesen Cheng, Han...

2025 arXiv
[22]

Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , pages 311--318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2002. Associa...

2002
[23]

Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments

Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization , pages 65--72, Ann A...

2005
[24]

Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries

Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. Technical Report WS-04-06, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 2004. Presented at the Workshop on Text Summarization Branches Out (WAS), Barcelona, Spain

2004
[25]

Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh

Ramakrishna Vedantam, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 4566--4575, Boston, Massachusetts, 2015. IEEE

2015
[26]

CityLLaVA: Efficient Fine-Tuning for Vision-Language Models in City Scenario

Cheng Deng, Yujie Li, Haoxuan Jiang, Weihao Li, Yujing Zhang, Hang Zhao, and Pan Zhou. CityLLaVA: Efficient Fine-Tuning for Vision-Language Models in City Scenario . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , Seattle, WA, 2024

2024
[27]

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of pretrained language models: A survey

Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Wendi Zheng, Yuxian Gu, Canwen Xu, Xu Han, Yujie Lu, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Tang. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of pretrained language models: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys , 55(12):1--35, 2023

2023
[28]

Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen

Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , Virtual Conference, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Scenario Understanding of Traffic Scenes Through Large Visual Language Models

Jonathan Rivera, Ke Lin, and Ehsan Adeli. Scenario Understanding of Traffic Scenes Through Large Visual Language Models . In Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Semantic Understanding of Traffic Scenes with Large Vision-Language Models

Yuan Zhang, Lei Liu, Haifeng Zhang, Xin Wang, and Ming Li. Semantic Understanding of Traffic Scenes with Large Vision-Language Models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20092 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

ChatGPT Is on the Horizon: Could a Large Language Model Be All We Need for Intelligent Transportation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05382 , 2023

Dongdong Wang, Zijin Wang, Shengxuan Ding, et al. ChatGPT Is on the Horizon: Could a Large Language Model Be All We Need for Intelligent Transportation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05382 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

A review of the effect of traffic and weather characteristics on road safety

Athanasios Theofilatos and George Yannis. A review of the effect of traffic and weather characteristics on road safety . Accident Analysis and Prevention , 72:244--256, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey

Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 46(8):5625--5645, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Benchmark Evaluations, Applications, and Challenges of Large Vision Language Models: A Survey

Zongxia Li, Xiyang Wu, Hongyang Du, Huy Nghiem, and Guangyao Shi. Benchmark Evaluations, Applications, and Challenges of Large Vision Language Models: A Survey . arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02189 , 2025

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

A Survey on Multi-Agent Foundation Models: Progress and Challenges

Hao Xu, Lin Jin, Xin Wang, Liwei Wang, and Chang Liu. A Survey on Multi-Agent Foundation Models: Progress and Challenges . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.20061 , 2024

work page arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Survey on Knowledge Distillation for Large Language Models: Methods, Evaluation, and Application

Chuanpeng Yang, Yao Zhu, Wang Lu, Yidong Wang, Qian Chen, Chenlong Gao, Bingjie Yan, and Yiqiang Chen. Survey on Knowledge Distillation for Large Language Models: Methods, Evaluation, and Application . ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , 2024

work page 2024