Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: A Survey

Federica Sarro; He Ye; Mark Harman; Qunying Song

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: A Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 The survey concludes that generative AI is a viable, rapidly growing tool for scenario-based testing of autonomous driving systems, while cataloging 27 limitations.

desk verdict A competent, useful systematic survey of GenAI for ADS testing with a solid taxonomy of 91 studies, but its effectiveness claims rest on self-reported performance and should be read with that caveat in view. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19882 v1 pith:Z7GHS77A submitted 2025-08-27 cs.SE cs.AI

Qunying Song , He Ye , Mark Harman , Federica Sarro This is my paper

classification cs.SEcs.AI

keywords generativeAIautonomousdrivingsystemsADStestingscenario-basedlargelanguagemodelsdiffusionGANssystematicliteraturereview

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This survey of 91 primary studies sets out to establish that generative AI is becoming a practical resource for testing autonomous driving systems, mainly through scenario-based testing in simulation. The authors organize the field into six tasks — scenario generation, critical scenario generation, transformation, augmentation, reconstruction, and understanding — and show that large language models, diffusion models, GANs, autoencoders, and hybrid pipelines have all been used for these tasks. Their positive conclusion is that generative methods "have demonstrated promising results," making generative AI a direction worth further research, while also cataloging 27 limitations. A reader should care because ADS validation requires covering rare and dangerous driving situations that are costly to encounter on real roads, and generative models offer a way to fabricate such scenarios at scale.

What carries the argument

The organizing object is a taxonomy of six generative-AI tasks in scenario-based testing: scenario generation, critical scenario generation, transformation, augmentation, reconstruction, and understanding. The argument is carried by the thematic synthesis of 91 studies, plus an inventory of the evaluation stack — datasets (e.g., Waymo, nuScenes, highD, nuPlan), simulators (e.g., Carla, LGSVL, MetaDrive), systems under test, more than 160 metrics, and over 100 baselines. Within the taxonomy, the recurring mechanism is conditioning: LLMs/VLMs turn natural language or video into scenario specifications via prompt engineering, while diffusion, GAN, and autoencoder models generate trajectories or

What would settle it

A common evaluation: take a representative sample of the surveyed generative methods and run them on the same benchmark (for example, Waymo or nuScenes scenarios executed in Carla or MetaDrive against a fixed ADS such as Apollo), measuring collision detection rate and scenario diversity against a simple random scenario generator and a traditional search-based baseline. If the generative methods do not consistently beat these cheaper baselines, the survey's synthesis of "promising results" would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the survey's discovery is a map and a verdict. The map: 91 studies, most published between 2023 and 2025, are classified by generative model (LLMs 36%, diffusion-based 31%, GANs 18%, autoencoders, and hybrid models) and by task, with 77% of papers aimed at scenario generation or critical scenario generation. The verdict: taken together, these studies report that generative AI can produce realistic, diverse, controllable, and safety-critical driving scenarios, and nearly all compare favorably against baselines such as TrafficGen, LCTGen, STRIVE, AdvSim, L2C, and BITS. The authors therefore conclude that generative AI is a valuable direction for advancing ADS testing. They al

Load-bearing premise

The synthesis assumes the 91 primary studies' self-reported evaluations are trustworthy: the authors took the papers' descriptions at face value, and nearly all studies report improved performance over baselines, so any weakness in those baselines or selectivity in reporting carries into the survey's positive conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the surveyed results hold, ADS testers can generate safety-critical and out-of-distribution scenarios — collisions, near-misses, rare weather — on demand in simulation, without waiting for real crashes or manual scenario design.
Expect continued growth of hybrid pipelines in which LLMs interpret instructions or accident reports and diffusion models or GANs produce the concrete scenario.
Evaluation will stay anchored to the current common datasets and simulators, with realism as the most frequently checked quality attribute, alongside diversity, controllability, criticality, and efficiency.
The 27 documented limitations define a research agenda: reducing hallucination in LLM/VLM outputs, improving generalization to underrepresented scenarios, and lowering computational cost.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the strength of the survey's positive conclusion is only as good as the 91 primary evaluations, which the authors took at face value; a replication study with common baselines and a fixed set of ADS would be the natural next test.
My inference: the dominance of GPT models and a small cluster of public datasets may reflect access and popularity rather than technical superiority; comparing non-GPT open-weight models on the same tasks would reveal how much of the reported success depends on the specific model family.
My inference: the six-task taxonomy could support a practical benchmark suite that scores each task by downstream utility — how many new ADS failures are uncovered per generated scenario and per unit of compute — rather than by realism alone.

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

This is a well-executed systematic survey and a genuinely useful reference synthesis. The field needed a map of GenAI applied specifically to ADS testing, and this delivers one: 91 studies, six task categories, a 27-item limitation catalog, and a compilation of datasets, simulators, SUTs, metrics, and baselines. The method is transparent—search string, databases, snowballing, inclusion criteria, and a threats-to-validity section are all disclosed. The six categories (scenario generation, critical scenario generation, transformation, augmentation, reconstruction, understanding) are a reasonable organizational scheme and likely to be reused by other researchers.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. The central conclusion that GenAI "has demonstrated promising results" is an aggregation of what the 91 primary studies claim about themselves. The survey explicitly says it focuses on evaluation setups rather than performance results because nearly all studies reported improvement over baselines. That means no risk-of-bias weighting, no correction for weak baselines, missing error bars, or selective reporting. With 31% of the included papers being preprints and author feedback used to add two more papers, the positive synthesis inherits whatever inflation exists in the primary literature. This is a moderate concern, not a fatal one: the taxonomy and limitation analysis are descriptive and would stand even if the effectiveness claims were stripped out. But the paper would be stronger if it either tempered the effectiveness conclusion or added a critical appraisal of the primary evidence.

For a survey, the analysis is honest and well-documented. The circularity inherent to thematic synthesis is acknowledged and is not a flaw in itself. The paper deserves a serious referee; the right revision would be to add a risk-of-bias discussion or, failing that, a clearer hedge on the effectiveness finding. I'd send it out rather than desk-reject. I'd also bring it to a reading group to debate how much weight a survey should give to self-reported effectiveness in a field this immature.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic literature survey of 91 studies on the use of generative AI (LLMs, VLMs, diffusion models, GANs, VAEs, hybrid models) for testing autonomous driving systems. The authors define a review protocol with database searches, snowballing, thematic coding, author validation, and a threats-to-validity discussion. They organize the literature into six application categories—scenario generation, critical scenario generation, transformation, augmentation, reconstruction, and understanding—and report the main generative models, target ADS components, datasets, simulators, metrics, baselines, and a catalog of 27 limitations. The central conclusion is that generative methods 'have demonstrated promising results' for ADS testing and merit further research.

Significance. If the survey's synthesis is reliable, it provides a useful map of a rapidly growing area, consolidating scattered evidence and identifying concrete gaps: limited generalization, hallucinations, computational cost, and under-specified evaluation. The strengths are real: the literature selection is disclosed in unusual detail (search string, databases, dates, inclusion criteria, snowballing), the thematic categorization is systematic, the limitations table is a practical reference, and the author-validation step is a distinctive effort to check interpretation. The paper also makes a useful methodological contribution by documenting, rather than hiding, the difficulty of evaluating generative outputs in this domain. However, the significance of the headline conclusion depends on evidence quality: the survey aggregates self-reported effectiveness without independent appraisal, which limits how strongly the 'promising results' claim can be stated.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2.3 / Section 4.3 / Section 3.2] The paper's central claim—'These generative methods have demonstrated promising results' (Section 4.2.3)—rests on accepting the effectiveness reports of the 91 primary studies. But Section 4.3 explicitly states: 'As nearly all studies reported improved performance over baselines, we focus our analysis on the datasets, simulators, ADS systems, evaluation metrics, and baseline methods used for evaluation, rather than the performance results themselves.' Section 3.2 adds that extraction 'relied entirely on the descriptions provided in the papers, without making any additional inferences or assumptions.' This means the survey never independently probed whether the reported improvements are meaningful, and no risk-of-bias weighting (e.g., baseline strength, error bars, controlled comparison, conflicts of interest) is applied. The conclusion is therefore an aggregation of self-reports, not a c
[Section 4.1 / Section 3.4] The evidence base is disproportionately composed of non-peer-reviewed preprints (28 of 91, 31%), and the dataset was further expanded by author recommendations (Section 3.4). The paper handles this transparently, but the conclusion does not account for the likely publication and selection biases. A survey that intends to support a positive synthesis needs to address whether the included set systematically over-represents positive or 'promising' findings. The threats-to-validity section (Section 3.5) discusses construct validity and reliability, but not selection bias or the risk that the author-validation process, by soliciting additional papers from the authors of already included papers, may reinforce the existing positive frame. This should be acknowledged and, where possible, mitigated (e.g., a sensitivity analysis excluding preprints or re-running the synthesis on the peer-reviewed
[Section 4.3.4 / Table 23] On the survey's own account, the effectiveness metrics used by primary studies are heterogeneous and sometimes poorly defined: 'several studies used some evaluation metrics in the results without sufficient detail on how they are computed... therefore, they are not included in our analysis.' The paper does not state how many studies were excluded from the effectiveness analysis for this reason, or how the heterogeneous definitions of 'failure' and 'performance improvement' were reconciled when the positive synthesis was formed. Without that reconciliation, the reader cannot judge whether 'nearly all studies reported improved performance' reflects a robust empirical pattern or simply different studies measuring different things. Please report the number of cases excluded due to unclear metrics and, at minimum, tabulate how many studies used each of the six quality attributes and what frac
[Section 4.3.5 / Table 28] The baseline-method review is useful, but it lists more than 100 baselines without indicating which comparisons were meaningful. For instance, several studies compare against 'Random' or a single earlier generative model; others compare against established scenario-generation baselines such as TrafficGen, STRIVE, AdvSim, or L2C. The survey does not analyze whether the baselines in each study were strong, matched in training effort, or selected to give the proposed method an advantage. This matters because the survey's own conclusion about 'promising results' inherits the validity of these comparisons. At minimum, the paper should report how many of the 91 studies compared against a non-trivial baseline and how many relied on human inspection or qualitative visual comparison only. This information is available in the text and should be summarized explicitly.

minor comments (8)

[Section 4.2.1] Typo: 'Language Language Models (LLMs)' should read 'Large Language Models (LLMs).' Also 'Examples of LLMs include examples include GPT' is a duplicated phrase.
[Section 4.2.1, Table 4] Table 4 lists 'Genimi-1.5 Pro'—should be 'Gemini-1.5 Pro.'
[Section 4.2.3] The paragraph on diffusion models contains 'learns to denoise random noise into realistic driving scenarios'—suggest 'denoise random noise' → 'denoise random samples' or 'denoise noisy latents'.
[Section 3.1.2] The sentence 'we used IEEE Xplore [101] and ACM Digital Library [3], both are digital library that provides comprehensive access' has subject-verb agreement and should be reworded.
[Section 4.2.3, (1.3)] The phrase 'and and learns to denoise' appears in the description of DDPM; remove the duplication.
[Section 4.3.4, Table 21] Some metric names are listed inconsistently: e.g., 'Frechet Distance' and 'Fréchet Distance' are both used; normalize to one spelling. Similarly, 'mIOU' vs 'mIoU' should be consistent.
[Figure 2 and Figure 4] The projected 2025 counts are described in the caption but the light-colored bar tops are hard to distinguish in grayscale. Consider using a hatching pattern or an explicit 'projected' label in the bars themselves.
[Section 3.4] The author-validation step is a notable strength, but the survey should state whether the 18 authors who responded were a self-selected subset and whether their suggested additions might have introduced a bias toward papers that support the survey's framing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's synthesis is a thematic abstraction of its 91 primary studies, and its effectiveness conclusion is an aggregated self-report rather than a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review, not a derivation with fitted parameters or imported uniqueness theorems. Its output—six application categories, the RQ2 evaluation inventory, and the 27 limitations—is the intended result of a thematic synthesis of the 91 included studies. The conclusion that generative methods 'have demonstrated promising results' (Section 4.2.3) is an aggregation of the primary studies' reported evaluations. Section 4.3 explicitly states: 'As nearly all studies reported improved performance over baselines, we focus our analysis on the datasets, simulators, ADS systems, evaluation metrics, and baseline methods used for evaluation, rather than the performance results themselves.' That is an acknowledged methodological limitation: the survey accepts self-reported effectiveness without independent risk-of-bias weighting. This is a validity threat, not circularity: the survey does not construct the reported outcomes from its own definitions, nor does it rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. Section 3.2's statement that extraction 'relied entirely on the descriptions provided in the papers, without making any additional inferences or assumptions' further confirms that the synthesis is a summary of its inputs, which is inherent to a thematic review rather than a circular reduction. The author-feedback validation in Section 3.4, in which authors confirmed the analysis and recommended two additional papers, introduces a possible selection-bias concern, but it does not make any claim equivalent to its input by construction. The methodology cites standard SLR guidelines and two recent surveys; even if some of those citations were self-citations, the methodology is not load-bearing for the empirical findings and is independently reproducible. No self-definitional equation, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain forces the survey's conclusions. Any concern about uncritical acceptance of baselines or publication bias belongs under correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, no invented entities; the survey introduces no quantitative model. The three axioms are the assumptions inherent to any systematic literature review.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The search and snowballing process retrieved a representative sample of the field.
The survey's categories and limitations are only as complete as its 91-study corpus. Missed papers could change the taxonomy.
domain assumption Primary studies' self-reported evaluations are accepted as evidence of effectiveness.
Section 3.2 says the authors relied entirely on the papers' descriptions without additional inference, and Section 4.3 reports nearly all studies claimed improved performance. The survey does not independently validate these claims.
domain assumption The thematic analysis categories are meaningful, distinct, and non-overlapping.
The six task categories and 27 limitations were constructed through authors' coding and workshops (Section 3.3); another team might segment the literature differently.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7GHS77A

@misc{pith2026250819882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7GHS77A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19882}
}

read the original abstract

Autonomous driving systems (ADS) have been an active area of research, with the potential to deliver significant benefits to society. However, before large-scale deployment on public roads, extensive testing is necessary to validate their functionality and safety under diverse driving conditions. Therefore, different testing approaches are required, and achieving effective and efficient testing of ADS remains an open challenge. Recently, generative AI has emerged as a powerful tool across many domains, and it is increasingly being applied to ADS testing due to its ability to interpret context, reason about complex tasks, and generate diverse outputs. To gain a deeper understanding of its role in ADS testing, we systematically analyzed 91 relevant studies and synthesized their findings into six major application categories, primarily centered on scenario-based testing of ADS. We also reviewed their effectiveness and compiled a wide range of datasets, simulators, ADS, metrics, and benchmarks used for evaluation, while identifying 27 limitations. This survey provides an overview and practical insights into the use of generative AI for testing ADS, highlights existing challenges, and outlines directions for future research in this rapidly evolving field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19882 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Methodology of the survey includes four main stages: literature search, data extraction, data synthesis, and data validation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Number of papers published per year. Particularly for 2025, since the snowballing was conducted on May 15, the estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Number of pre-prints and peer-reviewed papers accompanied by pre-prints released before or after publication. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Breakdown of the number of papers published per year based on the types of generative models used. Particularly for 2025, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distribution of papers by task (objective) in ADS testing, including counts and proportions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Number and proportion of papers employing metrics related to each quality attribute in the evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

In the Driver's Seat: A Multi-Company Study on the Reality of Autonomous Driving System Testing
cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Industry ADS testing is scenario-based and X-in-the-loop, lacks agreed acceptance criteria and realistic scenario coverage, and a nine-company interview study synthesizes this into an evidence-centered closed-loop framework.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

271 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Erfan Aasi, Phat Nguyen, Shiva Sreeram, Guy Rosman, Sertac Karaman, and Daniela Rus. 2024. Generating out-of-distribution scenarios using language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16554 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[2]

O’Kelly, Alena Rodionova, and Rahul Mangharam

Houssam Abbas, Matthew E. O’Kelly, Alena Rodionova, and Rahul Mangharam. 2017. A Driver’s License Test for Driverless Vehicles. Mechanical Engineering 139, 12 (12 2017), S13–S16. doi:10.1115/1.2017-Dec-9

work page doi:10.1115/1.2017-dec-9 2017
[3]

ACM. 2025. ACM Digital Library. https://dl.acm.org/ (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2025
[4]

Jubril Gbolahan Adigun, Matteo Camilli, Michael Felderer, Andrea Giusti, Dominik T Matt, Anna Perini, Barbara Russo, and Angelo Susi. 2022. Collaborative Artificial Intelligence Needs Stronger Assurances Driven by Risks. Computer 55, 3 (2022), 52–63. doi:10.1109/MC.2021.3131990

arXiv 2022
[5]

Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 23716–23736

2022
[6]

Matthias Althoff, Markus Koschi, and Stefanie Manzinger. 2017. CommonRoad: Composable benchmarks for motion planning on roads. In 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 719–726

2017
[7]

Mohammad Hossein Amini and Shiva Nejati. 2024. Bridging the gap between real-world and synthetic images for testing autonomous driving systems. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering . 732–744

2024
[8]

Anthropic. [n. d.]. The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:268232499

Show all 271 references

[9]

Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. 2017. Wasserstein GAN

2017
[10]

ASAM. 2024. ASAM OpenDRIVE. https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/opendrive/ (last accessed: July 15 2025)

2024
[11]

ASAM. 2024. ASAM OpenSCENARIO XML. https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/openscenario-xml/ (last accessed: July 15 2025)

2024
[12]

Deepika Badampudi, Claes Wohlin, and Kai Petersen. 2015. Experiences from using snowballing and database searches in systematic literature studies. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering . 1–10

2015
[13]

Baidu. 2013. An open autonomous driving platform. https://github.com/ApolloAuto/apollo (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2013
[14]

Luciano Baresi, Davide Yi Xian Hu, Muhammad Irfan Mas’udi, and Giovanni Quattrocchi. 2025. DILLEMA: Diffusion and Large Language Models for Multi-Modal Augmentation. In 2025 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Deep Learning for Testing and Testing for Deep Learning (DeepTest) ....

2025
[15]

Luciano Baresi, Davide Yi Xian Hu, Andrea Stocco, and Paolo Tonella. 2025. Efficient Domain Augmentation for Autonomous Driving Testing Using Diffusion Models. In 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE Computer Society, 743–743

2025
[16]

Staphord Bengesi, Hoda El-Sayed, Md Kamruzzaman Sarker, Yao Houkpati, John Irungu, and Timothy Oladunni. 2024. Advancements in generative AI: A comprehensive review of GANs, GPT, autoencoders, diffusion model, and transformers. IEEe Access 12 (2024), 69812–69837. Manuscript su...

2024
[17]

Luca Bergamini, Yawei Ye, Oliver Scheel, Long Chen, Chih Hu, Luca Del Pero, Błażej Osiński, Hugo Grimmett, and Peter Ondruska. 2021. Simnet: Learning reactive self-driving simulations from real-world observations. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automatio...

2021
[18]

Felix Beringhoff, Joel Greenyer, Christian Roesener, and Matthias Tichy. 2022. Thirty-one challenges in testing automated vehicles: Interviews with experts from industry and research. In 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 360–366. doi:10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827097

2022
[19]

David M Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D McAuliffe. 2017. Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American statistical Association 112, 518 (2017), 859–877

2017
[20]

Mariusz Bojarski, Davide Del Testa, Daniel Dworakowski, Bernhard Firner, Beat Flepp, Prasoon Goyal, Lawrence D Jackel, Mathew Monfort, Urs Muller, Jiakai Zhang, et al. 2016. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[21]

Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[22]

Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. 2023. InstructPix2Pix: Learning To Follow Image Editing Instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 18392–18402

2023
[23]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

2020
[24]

Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh Vora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Giancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. 2020. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and patt...

2020
[25]

Jinkang Cai, Weiwen Deng, Haoran Guang, Ying Wang, Jiangkun Li, and Juan Ding. 2022. A Survey on Data-Driven Scenario Generation for Automated Vehicle Testing. Machines 10, 11 (2022), 1101. doi:10.3390/machines10111101

2022 doi
[26]

Xuan Cai, Xuesong Bai, Zhiyong Cui, Danmu Xie, Daocheng Fu, Haiyang Yu, and Yilong Ren. 2025. Text2Scenario: Text-Driven Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving Test. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02911 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[27]

John Canny. 1986. A Computational Approach to Edge Detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence PAMI-8, 6 (1986), 679–698. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

1986
[28]

Yihan Cao, Siyu Li, Yixin Liu, Zhiling Yan, Yutong Dai, Philip S Yu, and Lichao Sun. 2023. A comprehensive survey of ai-generated content (aigc): A history of generative ai from gan to chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04226 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[29]

Zhe Cao, Gines Hidalgo, Tomas Simon, Shih-En Wei, and Yaser Sheikh. 2019. Openpose: Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 43, 1 (2019), 172–186

2019
[30]

Loredana Caruccio, Stefano Cirillo, Giuseppe Polese, Giandomenico Solimando, Shanmugam Sundaramurthy, and Genoveffa Tortora. 2024. Claude 2.0 large language model: Tackling a real-world classification problem with a new iterative prompt engineering approach. Intelligent System...

2024
[31]

Cheng Chang, Siqi Wang, Jiawei Zhang, Jingwei Ge, and Li Li. 2024. Llmscenario: Large language model driven scenario generation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 54, 11 (2024), 6581–6594

2024
[32]

Ming-Fang Chang, John Lambert, Patsorn Sangkloy, Jagjeet Singh, Slawomir Bak, Andrew Hartnett, De Wang, Peter Carr, Simon Lucey, Deva Ramanan, et al. 2019. Argoverse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and p...

2019
[33]

Wei-Jer Chang, Francesco Pittaluga, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Wei Zhan, and Manmohan Chandraker. 2025. SAFE-SIM: Safety-Critical Closed-Loop Traffic Simulation with Diffusion-Controllable Adversaries. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2024 . Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 242–258

2025
[34]

Wei-Jer Chang, Wei Zhan, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Manmohan Chandraker, and Francesco Pittaluga. 2025. LANGTRAJ: Diffusion Model and Dataset for Language-Conditioned Trajectory Simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11521 (2025)

2025
[35]

Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, et al. 2024. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology 15, 3 (2024), 1–45

2024
[36]

Kan Chen, Runzhou Ge, Hang Qiu, Rami Ai-Rfou, Charles Qi, Xuanyu Zhou, Zoey Yang, Scott Ettinger, Pei Sun, Zhaoqi Leng, et al. 2024. Womd-lidar: Raw sensor dataset benchmark for motion forecasting. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE,...

2024
[37]

Kai Chen, Yanze Li, Wenhua Zhang, Yanxin Liu, Pengxiang Li, Ruiyuan Gao, Lanqing Hong, Meng Tian, Xinhai Zhao, Zhenguo Li, Dit-Yan Yeung, Huchuan Lu, and Xu Jia. 2025. Automated Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models on Self-Driving Corner Cases. In 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Co...

2025
[38]

Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M Zhang, Max Hort, Mark Harman, and Federica Sarro. 2024. Fairness testing: A comprehensive survey and analysis of trends. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 33, 5 (2024), 1–59

2024
[39]

Kashyap Chitta, Daniel Dauner, and Andreas Geiger. 2024. SLEDGE: Synthesizing Driving Environments with Generative Models and Rule-Based Traffic. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part IV (Milan, ...

2024 doi
[40]

Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. 2016. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and patter...

2016
[41]

Cornell University. 2025. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/ (last accessed: July 11 2025). Manuscript submitted to ACM Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: A Survey 59

2025
[42]

Daniela S Cruzes and Tore Dybå. 2011. Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. In 2011 international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement . IEEE, 275–284. doi:10.1109/ESEM.2011.36

2011 doi
[43]

Can Cui, Yunsheng Ma, Xu Cao, Wenqian Ye, Yang Zhou, Kaizhao Liang, Jintai Chen, Juanwu Lu, Zichong Yang, Kuei-Da Liao, et al. 2024. A survey on multimodal large language models for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of compute...

2024
[44]

Ivan Culjak, David Abram, Tomislav Pribanic, Hrvoje Dzapo, and Mario Cifrek. 2012. A brief introduction to OpenCV. In 2012 proceedings of the 35th international convention MIPRO . IEEE, 1725–1730

2012
[45]

Arghavan Moradi Dakhel, Vahid Majdinasab, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh, Michel C Desmarais, and Zhen Ming Jack Jiang. 2023. Github copilot ai pair programmer: Asset or liability? Journal of Systems and Software 203 (2023), 111734

2023
[46]

DeepSeek-AI. 2025. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[47]

DeepSeek-AI. 2025. DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[48]

Andreas Demetriou, Henrik Alfsvåg, Sadegh Rahrovani, and Morteza Haghir Chehreghani. 2023. A Deep Learning Framework for Generation and Analysis of Driving Scenario Trajectories. SN Comput. Sci. 4, 3 (March 2023), 14 pages. doi:10.1007/s42979-023-01714-3

2023 doi
[49]

Andreas Demetriou, Henrik Allsvåg, Sadegh Rahrovani, and Morteza Haghir Chehreghani. 2020. Generation of driving scenario trajectories with generative adversarial networks. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 1–6

2020
[50]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human...

2019
[51]

Wenhao Ding, Yulong Cao, Ding Zhao, Chaowei Xiao, and Marco Pavone. 2024. Realgen: Retrieval augmented generation for controllable traffic scenarios. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 93–110

2024
[52]

Wenhao Ding, Baiming Chen, Minjun Xu, and Ding Zhao. 2020. Learning to collide: An adaptive safety-critical scenarios generating method. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2243–2250

2020
[53]

Wenhao Ding, Haohong Lin, Bo Li, and Ding Zhao. 2025. Semantically Adversarial Scene Generation With Explicit Knowledge Guidance. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 26, 2 (2025), 1510–1521. doi:10.1109/TITS.2024.3510515

2025
[54]

Wenhao Ding, Wenshuo Wang, and Ding Zhao. 2019. A Multi-Vehicle Trajectories Generator to Simulate Vehicle-to-Vehicle Encountering Scenarios. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . 4255–4261. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793776

2019
[55]

Wenhao Ding, Chejian Xu, Mansur Arief, Haohong Lin, Bo Li, and Ding Zhao. 2023. A survey on safety-critical driving scenario generation—a methodological perspective. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 24, 7 (2023), 6971–6988

2023
[56]

Wenhao Ding, Mengdi Xu, and Ding Zhao. 2020. Cmts: A conditional multiple trajectory synthesizer for generating safety-critical driving scenarios. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 4314–4321

2020
[57]

Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint...

2020 arXiv
[58]

Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. 2017. CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. In Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 1–16

2017
[59]

Elsevier. 2025. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2025
[60]

Elsevier. 2025. Scopus Content. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2025
[61]

Scott Ettinger, Shuyang Cheng, Benjamin Caine, Chenxi Liu, Hang Zhao, Sabeek Pradhan, Yuning Chai, Ben Sapp, Charles R Qi, Yin Zhou, et al. 2021. Large scale interactive motion forecasting for autonomous driving: The waymo open motion dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF in...

2021
[62]

Shujing Fang, Wenbo Wang, and Fei Hui. 2025. Cut-in scenarios generation on highways for autonomous driving tests. In Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Traffic Systems and Smart City (ITSSC 2024) , Vol. 13422. SPIE, 346–353

2025
[63]

Francesca M Favarò, Nazanin Nader, Sky O Eurich, Michelle Tripp, and Naresh Varadaraju. 2017. Examining accident reports involving autonomous vehicles in California. PLoS one 12, 9 (2017), e0184952. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184952

2017 doi
[65]

Stefan Feuerriegel, Jochen Hartmann, Christian Janiesch, and Patrick Zschech. 2024. Generative ai. Business & Information Systems Engineering 66, 1 (2024), 111–126

2024
[66]

Daniel J Fremont, Tommaso Dreossi, Shromona Ghosh, Xiangyu Yue, Alberto L Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, and Sanjit A Seshia. 2019. Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN conference on programming language design an...

2019
[67]

Scott Fujimoto, Herke Hoof, and David Meger. 2018. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1587–1596

2018
[68]

Sujan Sai Gannamaneni, Frederic Klein, Michael Mock, and Maram Akila. 2024. Exploiting clip self-consistency to automate image augmentation for safety critical scenarios. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 3594–3604. Manuscri...

2024
[69]

Dingcheng Gao, Yanjun Qin, Xiaoming Tao, and Jianhua LU. 2024. Diversifying Latent Flows for Safety-Critical Scenarios Generation. In 2024 IEEE 27th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2665–2670

2024
[70]

Haoxiang Gao, Zhongruo Wang, Yaqian Li, Kaiwen Long, Ming Yang, and Yiqing Shen. 2024. A survey for foundation models in autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01105 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[71]

Yuan Gao, Mattia Piccinini, and Johannes Betz. 2025. Risk-Aware Driving Scenario Analysis with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02145 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[72]

Yuan Gao, Mattia Piccinini, Yuchen Zhang, Dingrui Wang, Korbinian Moller, Roberto Brusnicki, Baha Zarrouki, Alessio Gambi, Jan Frederik Totz, Kai Storms, et al. 2025. Foundation Models in Autonomous Driving: A Survey on Scenario Generation and Scenario Analysis. arXiv preprint...

2025
[73]

Leon A Gatys, Alexander S Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. 2016. Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 2414–2423

2016
[74]

Safety-Critical Driving Scenario Generation. [n. d.]. CausalAF: Causal Autoregressive Flow for Safety-Critical Driving Scenario Generation. ([n. d.])
[75]

Ghais Zaher. 2020. Foggy-CycleGAN. https://github.com/ghaiszaher/Foggy-CycleGAN (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2020
[76]

Roger Girgis, Florian Golemo, Felipe Codevilla, Martin Weiss, Jim Aldon D’Souza, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Felix Heide, and Christopher Pal. 2021. Latent variable sequential set transformers for joint multi-agent motion prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00563 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[77]

Lin Gong, Zhen Liu, Yunfeng Hu, Ting Qu, Hong Chen, and Xun Gong. 2023. Interactive Generation of Dynamically Feasible Vehicle Trajectories Using Dual-VAE. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56, 2 (2023), 2214–2219. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.1129 22nd IFAC World Congress

2023 doi
[78]

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM 63, 11 (2020), 139–144

2020
[79]

Ian J Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

2014
[80]

Google. 2025. Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2025
[81]

Karol Gregor, Ivo Danihelka, Andriy Mnih, Charles Blundell, and Daan Wierstra. 2014. Deep AutoRegressive Networks. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 32) , Eric P. Xing and Tony Jebara (Eds.)....

2014
[82]

Junru Gu, Chen Sun, and Hang Zhao. 2021. Densetnt: End-to-end trajectory prediction from dense goal sets. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 15303–15312

2021
[83]

Yanchen Guan, Haicheng Liao, Zhenning Li, Jia Hu, Runze Yuan, Guohui Zhang, and Chengzhong Xu. 2024. World models for autonomous driving: An initial survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

2024
[84]

An Guo, Yuan Zhou, Haoxiang Tian, Chunrong Fang, Yunjian Sun, Weisong Sun, Xinyu Gao, Anh Tuan Luu, Yang Liu, and Zhenyu Chen. 2024. SoVAR: Build Generalizable Scenarios from Accident Reports for Autonomous Driving Testing. InProceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conf...

2024
[85]

Zhiming Guo, Xing Gao, Jianlan Zhou, Xinyu Cai, and Botian Shi. 2023. SceneDM: Scene-level Multi-agent Trajectory Generation with Consistent Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15736 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[86]

Zipeng Guo, Yuezhao Yu, and Chao Gou. 2023. Controllable diffusion models for safety-critical driving scenario generation. In 2023 IEEE 35th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) . IEEE, 717–722

2023
[87]

Çağrı Güzay, Ege Özdemir, and Yahya Kara. 2023. A generative ai-driven application: Use of large language models for traffic scenario generation. In 2023 14th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ELECO) . IEEE, 1–6

2023
[88]

Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2018. Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. In International conference on machine learning . Pmlr, 1861–1870

2018
[89]

Shlomi Hacohen, Oded Medina, and Shraga Shoval. 2022. Autonomous Driving: A Survey of Technological Gaps Using Google Scholar and Web of Science Trend Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, 11 (2022), 21241–21258. doi:10.1109/TITS.2022.3172442

2022
[90]

midjourney

Dena Magdy Hanna. 2023. The use of artificial intelligence art generator “midjourney” in artistic and advertising creativity. Journal of design sciences and applied arts 4, 2 (2023), 42–58

2023
[91]

Irina Higgins, Loic Matthey, Arka Pal, Christopher Burgess, Xavier Glorot, Matthew Botvinick, Shakir Mohamed, and Alexander Lerchner. 2017. beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In International conference on learning representations

2017
[92]

Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J Fleet, et al. 2022. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[93]

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 6840–6851

2020
[94]

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.), Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 6840–6851

2020
[95]

Max Hort, Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M Zhang, Mark Harman, and Federica Sarro. 2024. Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing 1, 2 (2024), 1–52. Manuscript submitted to ACM Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Dr...

2024
[96]

Yuqi Huai. 2023. SORA-SVL. https://ics.uci.edu/~yhuai/SORA-SVL/ (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2023
[97]

Chin-Wei Huang, David Krueger, Alexandre Lacoste, and Aaron Courville. 2018. Neural Autoregressive Flows. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80) , Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause (Eds.). PMLR, 2078–2087

2018
[98]

Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. 2017. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 1501–1510

2017
[99]

Xin Huang, He Zhang, Xin Zhou, Muhammad Ali Babar, and Song Yang. 2018. Synthesizing qualitative research in software engineering: A critical review. In Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering . 1207–1218

2018
[100]

Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[101]

IEEE. 2025. IEEE Xplore. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2025
[102]

Road vehicles — Safety of the intended functionality

ISO 21448:2022(en) 2022. Road vehicles — Safety of the intended functionality . Standard. International Organization for Standardization. https: //www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:77490:en

2022
[103]

Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles

J3016_202104 2021. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles . Standard. SAE International. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/

2021
[104]

Samireh Jalali and Claes Wohlin. 2012. Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement . 29–38

2012
[105]

Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

2023 arXiv
[106]

Chiyu Max Jiang, Yijing Bai, Andre Cornman, Christopher Davis, Xiukun Huang, Hong Jeon, Sakshum Kulshrestha, John Lambert, Shuangyu Li, Xuanyu Zhou, Carlos Fuertes, Chang Yuan, Mingxing Tan, Yin Zhou, and Dragomir Anguelov. 2024. SceneDiffuser: Efficient and Controllable Drivi...

2024
[108]

Shoucai Jing, Yuyu Zhao, Xiangmo Zhao, Fei Hui, and Asad J. Khattak. 2024. An Efficient High-Risk Lane-Changing Scenario Edge Cases Generation Method for Autonomous Vehicle Safety Testing. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024), 1–13. doi:10.1109/TIV.2024.3414828

2024
[109]

Napat Karnchanachari, Dimitris Geromichalos, Kok Seang Tan, Nanxiang Li, Christopher Eriksen, Shakiba Yaghoubi, Noushin Mehdipour, Gianmarco Bernasconi, Whye Kit Fong, Yiluan Guo, et al . 2024. Towards learning-based planning: The nuplan benchmark for real-world autonomous dri...

2024
[110]

Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. 2019. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 4401–4410

2019
[111]

Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. 2020. Analyzing and Improving the Image Quality of StyleGAN. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

2020
[112]

Dhanoop Karunakaran, Julie Stephany Berrio, Stewart Worrall, and Eduardo Nebot. 2022. Challenges of testing highly automated vehicles: A literature review. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Recent Advances in Systems Science and Engineering (RASSE) . IEEE, 1–8

2022
[113]

Staffs Keele et al. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering . Technical Report. Technical report, ver. 2.3 ebse technical report. ebse

2007
[114]

Boshra Khalili and Andrew W Smyth. 2025. Autodrive-qa-automated generation of multiple-choice questions for autonomous driving datasets using large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15778 (2025)

2025
[115]

Seung Wook Kim, Jonah Philion, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2021. DriveGAN: Towards a Controllable High-Quality Neural Simulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 5820–5829

2021
[116]

Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2022. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. arXiv:1312.6114 [stat.ML] https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114

2022 arXiv
[117]

Diederik P Kingma, Max Welling, et al. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes

2013
[118]

Barbara Kitchenham, O Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and software technology 51, 1 (2009), 7–15

2009
[119]

Michael Kläs, Lisa Jöckel, Rasmus Adler, and Jan Reich. 2022. Integrating Testing and Operation-related Quantitative Evidences in Assurance Cases to Argue Safety of Data-Driven AI/ML Components. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2202.05313

2022 doi arXiv
[120]

Robert Krajewski, Julian Bock, Laurent Kloeker, and Lutz Eckstein. 2018. The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems. In 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transpor...

2018
[121]

Daniel Krajzewicz, Georg Hertkorn, Christian Rössel, and Peter Wagner. 2002. SUMO (Simulation of Urban MObility)-an open-source traffic simulation. In Proceedings of the 4th middle East Symposium on Simulation and Modelling (MESM20002) . 183–187

2002
[122]

Patricia Lago, Per Runeson, Qunying Song, and Roberto Verdecchia. 2024. Threats to validity in software engineering–hypocritical paper section or essential analysis?. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement ...

2024
[123]

Quoc V Le. 2013. Building high-level features using large scale unsupervised learning. In 2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing. IEEE, 8595–8598. Manuscript submitted to ACM 62 Song et al

2013
[124]

Kaican Li, Kai Chen, Haoyu Wang, Lanqing Hong, Chaoqiang Ye, Jianhua Han, Yukuai Chen, Wei Zhang, Chunjing Xu, Dit-Yan Yeung, et al. 2022. Coda: A real-world road corner case dataset for object detection in autonomous driving. In European conference on computer vision . Spring...

2022
[125]

Miao Li, Wenhao Ding, Haohong Lin, Yiqi Lyu, Yihang Yao, Yuyou Zhang, and Ding Zhao. 2025. CrashAgent: Crash Scenario Generation via Multi-modal Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18341 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[126]

Quanyi Li, Zhenghao Peng, Lan Feng, Qihang Zhang, Zhenghai Xue, and Bolei Zhou. 2022. Metadrive: Composing diverse driving scenarios for generalizable reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2022)

2022
[127]

Xuan Li, Enlu Liu, Tianyu Shen, Jun Huang, and Fei-Yue Wang. 2024. ChatGPT-Based Scenario Engineer: A New Framework on Scenario Generation for Trajectory Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 9, 3 (2024), 4422–4431. doi:10.1109/TIV.2024.3363232

2024
[128]

Xiaomin Li, Vangelis Metsis, Huangyingrui Wang, and Anne Hee Hiong Ngu. 2022. TTS-GAN: A Transformer-Based Time-Series Generative Adversarial Network. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 133–143

2022
[129]

Yuliang Li, Zhonglin Hou, and Hong Liu. 2024. Large Language Model and Behaviour Tree Based Real-World Test Scenario Generation for Autonomous Vehicles. In 2024 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) . IEEE,...

2024
[130]

Yun Li, Kai Katsumata, Ehsan Javanmardi, and Manabu Tsukada. 2024. Large language models for human-like autonomous driving: A survey. In 2024 IEEE 27th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 439–446

2024
[131]

Ye Li, Fanming Zeng, Chunyang Han, and Shuo Feng. 2024. Vehicle Lane-Changing scenario generation using time-series generative adversarial networks with an Adaptative parameter optimization strategy. Accident Analysis & Prevention 205 (2024), 107667. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2024.107667

2024
[132]

Haohong Lin, Xin Huang, Tung Phan, David Hayden, Huan Zhang, Ding Zhao, Siddhartha Srinivasa, Eric Wolff, and Hongge Chen. 2025. Causal Composition Diffusion Model for Closed-loop Traffic Generation. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVP...

2025
[133]

Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2023), 34892–34916

2023
[134]

Ming-Yu Liu, Thomas Breuel, and Jan Kautz. 2017. Unsupervised image-to-image translation networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

2017
[135]

Yiheng Liu, Tianle Han, Siyuan Ma, Jiayue Zhang, Yuanyuan Yang, Jiaming Tian, Hao He, Antong Li, Mengshen He, Zhengliang Liu, et al. 2023. Summary of chatgpt-related research and perspective towards the future of large language models. Meta-radiology 1, 2 (2023), 100017

2023
[136]

Zhiyuan Liu, Leheng Li, Yuning Wang, Haotian Lin, Zhizhe Liu, Lei He, and Jianqiang Wang. 2024. Controllable Traffic Simulation through LLM-Guided Hierarchical Chain-of-Thought Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15135 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[137]

Guannan Lou, Yao Deng, Xi Zheng, Mengshi Zhang, and Tianyi Zhang. 2022. Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: Where Are We and Where Should We Go? (ESEC/FSE 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–43. doi:10.1145/3540250.3549111

2022
[138]

Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

2019
[140]

Qiujing Lu, Meng Ma, Ximiao Dai, Xuanhan Wang, and Shuo Feng. 2024. Realistic corner case generation for autonomous vehicles with multimodal large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00243 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[141]

Qiujing Lu, Xuanhan Wang, Yiwei Jiang, Guangming Zhao, Mingyue Ma, and Shuo Feng. 2024. Multimodal large language model driven scenario testing for autonomous vehicles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06450 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[142]

Luca Medeiros. 2024. Language Segment-Anything. https://github.com/luca-medeiros/lang-segment-anything/tree/main (last accessed: July 18 2025)

2024
[143]

Siwei Luo, Yang Zhang, Yao Deng, and Xi Zheng. 2025. From accidents to insights: Leveraging multimodal data for scenario-driven ads testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02025 (2025)

2025
[144]

Reza Mahjourian, Rongbing Mu, Valerii Likhosherstov, Paul Mougin, Xiukun Huang, Joao Messias, and Shimon Whiteson. 2024. UniGen: Unified Modeling of Initial Agent States and Trajectories for Generating Autonomous Driving Scenarios. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robo...

2024
[145]

Aboli Marathe, Deva Ramanan, Rahee Walambe, and Ketan Kotecha. 2023. WEDGE: A Multi-Weather Autonomous Driving Dataset Built From Generative Vision-Language Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops . 3318–3327

2023
[146]

Ana-Maria Marcu, Long Chen, Jan Hünermann, Alice Karnsund, Benoit Hanotte, Prajwal Chidananda, Saurabh Nair, Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, Jamie Shotton, et al. 2024. Lingoqa: Visual question answering for autonomous driving. In European Conference on Computer Vision . S...

2024
[147]

Yuewen Mei, Tong Nie, Jian Sun, and Ye Tian. 2025. LLM-Attacker: Enhancing Closed-Loop Adversarial Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving With Large Language Models. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (2025), 1–9. doi:10.1109/TITS.2025.3578383

2025
[148]

Yuewen Mei, Tong Nie, Jian Sun, and Ye Tian. 2025. Seeking to Collide: Online Safety-Critical Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving with Retrieval Augmented Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00972 (2025). Manuscript submitted to ACM Generative AI for Testin...

2025 arXiv
[149]

Lu Mi, Hang Zhao, Charlie Nash, Xiaohan Jin, Jiyang Gao, Chen Sun, Cordelia Schmid, Nir Shavit, Yuning Chai, and Dragomir Anguelov. 2021. HDMapGen: A Hierarchical Graph Generative Model of High Definition Maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and P...

2021
[150]

Yan Miao, Georgios Fainekos, Bardh Hoxha, Hideki Okamoto, Danil Prokhorov, and Sayan Mitra. 2024. From dashcam videos to driving simulations: Stress testing automated vehicles against rare events. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16027 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[151]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2024. National motor vehicle crash causation survey. https://crashviewer.nhtsa.dot. gov/LegacyNMVCCS/Search (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2024
[152]

Christian Neurohr, Lukas Westhofen, Tabea Henning, Thies de Graaff, Eike Möhlmann, and Eckard Böde. 2020. Fundamental considerations around scenario-based testing for automated driving. In 2020 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) . IEEE, 121–127. doi:10.1109/IV47402.2020.9304823

2020
[153]

Phat Nguyen, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Zhang-Wei Hong, Sertac Karaman, and Daniela Rus. 2024. Text-to-Drive: Diverse Driving Behavior Synthesis via Large Language Models. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . 10495–10502. doi:10.1109/IROS5...

2024
[154]

Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. 2021. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[155]

Tong Nie, Jian Sun, and Wei Ma. 2025. Exploring the roles of large language models in reshaping transportation systems: A survey, framework, and roadmap. Artificial Intelligence for Transportation 1 (2025), 100003

2025
[156]

SUMO Simulation of Urban MObility. 2018. Trip - SUMO Documentation. https://sumo.dlr.de/docs/Tools/Trip.html (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2018
[157]

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1426

Official Journal of the European Union 2022. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1426 . Regulation. European Parliament and the Council. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R1426

2022
[158]

OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4V(ision) System Card. https://cdn.openai.com/papers/GPTV_System_Card.pdf

2023
[159]

OpenAI. 2024. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[160]

Ya Pan, Haiyang Ao, and Yong Fan. 2021. Metamorphic Testing for Autonomous Driving Systems in Fog based on Quantitative Measurement. In 2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C) . 30–37. doi:10.1109/QRS-C55045.2021.00015

2021
[161]

Mingxing Peng, Yuting Xie, Xusen Guo, Ruoyu Yao, Hai Yang, and Jun Ma. 2025. Ld-scene: Llm-guided diffusion for controllable generation of adversarial safety-critical driving scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11247 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[162]

Mingxing Peng, Ruoyu Yao, Xusen Guo, Yuting Xie, Xianda Chen, and Jun Ma. 2025. Safety-Critical Traffic Simulation with Guided Latent Diffusion Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00515 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[163]

Nenad Petrovic, Krzysztof Lebioda, Vahid Zolfaghari, André Schamschurko, Sven Kirchner, Nils Purschke, Fengjunjie Pan, and Alois Knoll. 2024. Llm-driven testing for autonomous driving scenarios. In 2024 2nd International Conference on Foundation and Large Language Models (FLLM...

2024
[164]

Ethan Pronovost, Meghana Reddy Ganesina, Noureldin Hendy, Zeyu Wang, Andres Morales, Kai Wang, and Nick Roy. 2023. Scenario Diffusion: Controllable Driving Scenario Generation With Diffusion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 36. Curran Associates, In...

2023
[165]

Tianwen Qian, Jingjing Chen, Linhai Zhuo, Yang Jiao, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2024. Nuscenes-qa: A multi-modal visual question answering benchmark for autonomous driving scenario. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 4542–4550

2024
[166]

Le Qiu, Zelai Xu, Qixin Tan, Wenhao Tang, Chao Yu, and Yu Wang. 2025. AED: Automatic Discovery of Effective and Diverse Vulnerabilities for Autonomous Driving Policy with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20804 (2025)

2025
[167]

Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learni...

2021
[168]

Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. 2015. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06434 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[169]

Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. (2018)

2018
[170]

Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research 21, 140 (2020), 1–67

2020
[171]

Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. 2022. Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[172]

Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. ...

2021
[173]

Guibas, Sanja Fidler, and Or Litany

Davis Rempe, Jonah Philion, Leonidas J. Guibas, Sanja Fidler, and Or Litany. 2022. Generating Useful Accident-Prone Driving Scenarios via a Learned Traffic Prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 17305–17315

2022
[174]

Hongping Ren, Hui Gao, He Chen, and Guangzhen Liu. 2022. A survey of autonomous driving scenarios and scenario databases. In 2022 9th International Conference on Dependable Systems and Their Applications (DSA) . IEEE, 754–762

2022
[175]

Stefan Riedmaier, Thomas Ponn, Dieter Ludwig, Bernhard Schick, and Frank Diermeyer. 2020. Survey on scenario-based safety assessment of automated vehicles. IEEE access 8 (2020), 87456–87477. Manuscript submitted to ACM 64 Song et al

2020
[176]

Peter Riegl, Karthikeyan Chandra Sekaran, and Michael Botsch. 2024. Generation of Realistic Traffic Scenarios for Virtual and Real Test Drives Based on a Hybrid Machine Learning Framework. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES) . 1–6....

2024
[177]

Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 10684–10695

2022
[178]

Guodong Rong, Byung Hyun Shin, Hadi Tabatabaee, Qiang Lu, Steve Lemke, M¯artin, š Možeiko, Eric Boise, Geehoon Uhm, Mark Gerow, Shalin Mehta, et al. 2020. Lgsvl simulator: A high fidelity simulator for autonomous driving. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International conference on intellige...

2020
[179]

Luke Rowe, Roger Girgis, Anthony Gosselin, Liam Paull, Christopher Pal, and Felix Heide. 2025. Scenario Dreamer: Vectorized Latent Diffusion for Generating Driving Simulation Environments. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR) . 17207–17218

2025
[180]

Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, et al. 2023. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[181]

Bo-Kai Ruan, Hao-Tang Tsui, Yung-Hui Li, and Hong-Han Shuai. 2025. Traffic Scene Generation from Natural Language Description for Autonomous Vehicles with Large Language Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09575 (2025)

2025
[182]

Rimvydas Rubavicius, Antonio Valerio Miceli-Barone, Alex Lascarides, and Subramanian Ramamoorthy. 2024. Generating driving simulations via conversation. arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2410

2024
[183]

Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mondal, and Aman Chadha. 2024. A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[184]

Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2020. DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[185]

Maike Scholtes, Lukas Westhofen, Lara Ruth Turner, Katrin Lotto, Michael Schuldes, Hendrik Weber, Nicolas Wagener, Christian Neurohr, Martin Herbert Bollmann, Franziska Körtke, et al . 2021. 6-layer model for a structured description and categorization of urban traffic and env...

2021
[186]

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[187]

Barbara Schütt, Joshua Ransiek, Thilo Braun, and Eric Sax. 2023. 1001 ways of scenario generation for testing of self-driving cars: A survey. In 2023 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 1–8

2023
[188]

Sandeep Singh Sengar, Affan Bin Hasan, Sanjay Kumar, and Fiona Carroll. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2024), 1–40

2024
[189]

Hao Shao, Letian Wang, Ruobing Chen, Hongsheng Li, and Yu Liu. 2023. Safety-enhanced autonomous driving using interpretable sensor fusion transformer. In Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 726–737

2023
[190]

Chonghao Sima, Katrin Renz, Kashyap Chitta, Li Chen, Hanxue Zhang, Chengen Xie, Jens Beißwenger, Ping Luo, Andreas Geiger, and Hongyang Li. 2024. Drivelm: Driving with graph visual question answering. In European conference on computer vision . Springer, 256–274

2024
[191]

Scenario-based verification and validation of self-driving vehicles: relevant safety metrics

Simens 2022. Scenario-based verification and validation of self-driving vehicles: relevant safety metrics . White Paper. Siemens Digital Industries Software

2022
[192]

Kihyuk Sohn, Honglak Lee, and Xinchen Yan. 2015. Learning Structured Output Representation using Deep Conditional Generative Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 28. Curran Assoc...

2015
[193]

Qunying Song, Avner Bensoussan, and Mohammad Reza Mousavi. 2025. Synthetic versus real: an analysis of critical scenarios for autonomous vehicle testing. Automated Software Engineering 32, 2 (2025), 37

2025
[194]

Qunying Song, Emelie Engstrom, and Per Runeson. 2021. Concepts in Testing of Autonomous Systems: Academic Literature and Industry Practice. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 1st Workshop on AI Engineering-Software Engineering for AI (W AIN). IEEE Computer Society, 74–81. doi:10.1109/WAIN52551....

2021
[195]

Qunying Song, Emelie Engström, and Per Runeson. 2024. An empirically grounded path forward for scenario-based testing of autonomous driving systems. In Companion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering . 232–243

2024
[196]

Qunying Song, Emelie Engström, and Per Runeson. 2024. Industry practices for challenging autonomous driving systems with critical scenarios. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 33, 4 (2024), 1–35

2024
[197]

James Spooner, Vasile Palade, Madeline Cheah, Stratis Kanarachos, and Alireza Daneshkhah. 2021. Generation of pedestrian crossing scenarios using ped-cross generative adversarial network. Applied Sciences 11, 2 (2021), 471

2021
[198]

James Spooner, Vasile Palade, Alireza Daneshkhah, and Stratis Kanarachos. 2021. Using Generative Adversarial Networks and Non-Roadside Video Data to Generate Pedestrian Crossing Scenarios. In 2021 20th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) ...

2021
[199]

Andrea Stocco, Brian Pulfer, and Paolo Tonella. 2022. Mind the gap! a study on the transferability of virtual versus physical-world testing of autonomous driving systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 4 (2022), 1928–1940

2022
[200]

Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2019. Vl-bert: Pre-training of generic visual-linguistic representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08530 (2019). Manuscript submitted to ACM Generative AI for Testing of Autonomous Driving Systems: A ...

2019 arXiv
[201]

Shuo Sun, Zekai Gu, Tianchen Sun, Jiawei Sun, Chengran Yuan, Yuhang Han, Dongen Li, and Marcelo H Ang Jr. 2023. Drivescenegen: Generating diverse and realistic driving scenarios from scratch. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14685 (2023)

2023
[202]

Simon Suo, Sebastian Regalado, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. 2021. Trafficsim: Learning to simulate realistic multi-agent behaviors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 10400–10409

2021
[203]

Shuhan Tan, Boris Ivanovic, Xinshuo Weng, Marco Pavone, and Philipp Kraehenbuehl. 2023. Language Conditioned Traffic Generation. In Proceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 229) . PMLR, 2714–2752

2023
[204]

Shuhan Tan, Kelvin Wong, Shenlong Wang, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Mengye Ren, and Raquel Urtasun. 2021. SceneGen: Learning To Generate Realistic Traffic Scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 892–901

2021
[205]

Shuncheng Tang, Zhenya Zhang, Yi Zhang, Jixiang Zhou, Yan Guo, Shuang Liu, Shengjian Guo, Yan-Fu Li, Lei Ma, Yinxing Xue, and Yang Liu. 2023. A Survey on Automated Driving System Testing: Landscapes and Trends. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 32, 5 (2023), 1–62. doi:10.1145/3579642

2023 doi
[206]

Shuncheng Tang, Zhenya Zhang, Jixiang Zhou, Lei Lei, Yuan Zhou, and Yinxing Xue. 2024. Legend: A top-down approach to scenario generation of autonomous driving systems assisted by large language models. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated ...

2024
[207]

Gemini Team. 2025. Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[208]

Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, et al. 2024. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[209]

The SVL Simulator team. 2019. SVL Simulator: An Autonomous Vehicle Simulator. https://github.com/lgsvl/simulator (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2019
[210]

Haoxiang Tian, Xingshuo Han, Yuan Zhou, Guoquan Wu, An Guo, Mingfei Cheng, Shuo Li, Jun Wei, and Tianwei Zhang. 2024. Lmm-enhanced safety-critical scenario generation for autonomous driving system testing from non-accident traffic videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10857 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[211]

Hanlin Tian, Kethan Reddy, Yuxiang Feng, Mohammed Quddus, Yiannis Demiris, and Panagiotis Angeloudis. 2024. Large (vision) language models for autonomous vehicles: Current trends and future directions. Authorea Preprints 2 (2024)

2024
[212]

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation La...

2023 arXiv
[213]

Sifan Tu, Xin Zhou, Dingkang Liang, Xingyu Jiang, Yumeng Zhang, Xiaofan Li, and Xiang Bai. 2025. The role of world models in shaping autonomous driving: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10498 (2025)

2025
[214]

Udacity. 2016. Udacity self-driving car. https://github.com/udacity/self-driving-car (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2016
[215]

Udacity. 2023. Udacity self-driving challenge 2. https://github.com/udacity/self-driving-car/tree/master/challenges/challenge-2 (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2023
[216]

ultralytics. 2022. Yolov5. https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5 (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2022
[217]

ultralytics. 2023. Yolov8. https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2023
[218]

Sushko Vadim, Schönfeld Edgar, Zhang Dan, Gall Juergen, Schiele Bernt, and Khoreva Anna. 2022. OASIS: Only Adversarial Supervision for Semantic Image Synthesis. International Journal of Computer Vision 130, 12 (09 2022), 2903–2923. doi:10.1007/s11263-022-01673-x

2022 doi
[219]

Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. 2017. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

2017
[220]

Balakrishnan Varadarajan, Ahmed Hefny, Avikalp Srivastava, Khaled S Refaat, Nigamaa Nayakanti, Andre Cornman, Kan Chen, Bertrand Douillard, Chi Pang Lam, Dragomir Anguelov, et al. 2022. Multipath++: Efficient information fusion and trajectory aggregation for behavior predictio...

2022
[221]

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

2017
[222]

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. ...

2017
[223]

Roberto Verdecchia, Emelie Engström, Patricia Lago, Per Runeson, and Qunying Song. 2023. Threats to validity in software engineering research: A critical reflection. Information and Software Technology 164 (2023), 107329

2023
[224]

Kilian von Neumann-Cosel, Marius Dupuis, and Christian Weiss. 2009. Virtual test drive-provision of a consistent tool-set for [d, h, s, v]-in-the-loop. In Proceedings of the driving simulation conference Monaco

2009
[225]

Jingkang Wang, Ava Pun, James Tu, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Abbas Sadat, Sergio Casas, Mengye Ren, and Raquel Urtasun. 2021. Advsim: Generating safety-critical scenarios for self-driving vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

2021
[226]

Jiawei Wang, Xintao Yan, Yao Mu, Haowei Sun, Zhong Cao, and Henry X. Liu. 2025. RADE: Learning Risk-Adjustable Driving Environment via Multi-Agent Conditional Diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03178 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[227]

Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. 2024. Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Mode...

2024
[228]

Sheng Wang, Ge Sun, Fulong Ma, Tianshuai Hu, Qiang Qin, Yongkang Song, Lei Zhu, and Junwei Liang. 2024. DragTraffic: Interactive and Controllable Traffic Scene Generation for Autonomous Driving. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)...

2024
[229]

Ting-Chun Wang, Ming-Yu Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, Andrew Tao, Jan Kautz, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2018. High-Resolution Image Synthesis and Semantic Manipulation With Conditional GANs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

2018
[230]

Yuping Wang, Shuo Xing, Cui Can, Renjie Li, Hongyuan Hua, Kexin Tian, Zhaobin Mo, Xiangbo Gao, Keshu Wu, Sulong Zhou, et al . 2025. Generative ai for autonomous driving: Frontiers and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08854 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[231]

Waymo LLC. 2019. Waymo Open Dataset. https://github.com/waymo-research/waymo-open-dataset (last accessed: July 21 2025)

2019
[232]

Yuxi Wei, Zi Wang, Yifan Lu, Chenxin Xu, Changxing Liu, Hao Zhao, Siheng Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. 2024. Editable Scene Simulation for Autonomous Driving via Collaborative LLM-Agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 1...

2024
[233]

Ronald J Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning 8, 3 (1992), 229–256

1992
[234]

Benjamin Wilson, William Qi, Tanmay Agarwal, John Lambert, Jagjeet Singh, Siddhesh Khandelwal, Bowen Pan, Ratnesh Kumar, Andrew Hartnett, Jhony Kaesemodel Pontes, et al. 2023. Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting. arXiv preprint arX...

2023 arXiv
[235]

Claes Wohlin. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering . 1–10

2014
[236]

Claes Wohlin, Marcos Kalinowski, Katia Romero Felizardo, and Emilia Mendes. 2022. Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studies. Information and Software Technology 147 (2022), 106908

2022
[237]

Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, Anders Wesslén, et al. [n. d.]. Experimentation in software engineering . Vol. 236. Springer
[238]

Xiongfei Wu, Mingfei Cheng, Qiang Hu, Jianlang Chen, Yuheng Huang, Manabu Okada, Michio Hayashi, Tomoyuki Tsuchiya, Xiaofei Xie, and Lei Ma. 2025. Foundation Models for Autonomous Driving System: An Initial Roadmap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00911 (2025)

2025
[239]

Yaozu Wu, Dongyuan Li, Yankai Chen, Renhe Jiang, Henry Peng Zou, Liancheng Fang, Zhen Wang, and Philip S Yu. 2025. Multi-agent autonomous driving systems with large language models: A survey of recent advances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16804 (2025)

2025
[240]

Yanhao Wu, Haoyang Zhang, Tianwei Lin, Lichao Huang, Shujie Luo, Rui Wu, Congpei Qiu, Wei Ke, and Tong Zhang. 2025. Generating Multimodal Driving Scenes via Next-Scene Prediction. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR) . 6844–6853

2025
[241]

Junkai Xia, Chenxin Xu, Qingyao Xu, Yanfeng Wang, and Siheng Chen. 2024. Language-Driven Interactive Traffic Trajectory Generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang (Eds.), ...

2024
[242]

Yuting Xie, Xianda Guo, Cong Wang, Kunhua Liu, and Long Chen. 2024. Advdiffuser: Generating adversarial safety-critical driving scenarios via guided diffusion. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 9983–9989

2024
[243]

Chejian Xu, Aleksandr Petiushko, Ding Zhao, and Bo Li. 2025. DiffScene: Diffusion-Based Safety-Critical Scenario Generation for Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 39, 8 (Apr. 2025), 8797–8805. doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i8.32951

2025 doi
[244]

Danfei Xu, Yuxiao Chen, Boris Ivanovic, and Marco Pavone. 2022. Bits: Bi-level imitation for traffic simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12403 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[245]

Weichao Xu, Huaxin Pei, Jingxuan Yang, Yuchen Shi, Yi Zhang, and Qianchuan Zhao. 2024. Exploring critical testing scenarios for decision-making policies: An LLM approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06684 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[246]

Xiaojie Xu, Tianshuo Xu, Fulong Ma, and Yingcong Chen. 2024. From Bird’s-Eye to Street View: Crafting Diverse and Condition-Aligned Images with Latent Diffusion Model. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 16795–16802

2024
[247]

Bo Yang, Xuelin Cao, Xiangfang Li, Chau Yuen, and Lijun Qian. 2020. Lessons learned from accident of autonomous vehicle testing: An edge learning-aided offloading framework. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters 9, 8 (2020), 1182–1186

2020
[248]

Lan Yang, Jiaqi Yuan, Xiangmo Zhao, Shan Fang, Zeyu He, Jiahao Zhan, Zhiqiang Hu, and Xia Li. 2023. SceGAN: A method for generating autonomous vehicle cut-in scenarios on highways based on deep learning. Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles 6, 4 (2023), 264–274

2023
[249]

Zhenpei Yang, Yuning Chai, Dragomir Anguelov, Yin Zhou, Pei Sun, Dumitru Erhan, Sean Rafferty, and Henrik Kretzschmar. 2020. SurfelGAN: Synthesizing Realistic Sensor Data for Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

2020
[250]

Zhenjie Yang, Xiaosong Jia, Hongyang Li, and Junchi Yan. 2023. Llm4drive: A survey of large language models for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01043 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[251]

Mert Yiğit and Ahmet Burak Can. 2024. GISD: generation of corner cases in infrared autonomous driving dataset with stable diffusion. In Applications of Machine Learning 2024 , Vol. 13138. SPIE, 159–168

2024
[252]

Zhao-Heng Yin, Lingfeng Sun, Liting Sun, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Wei Zhan. 2021. Diverse critical interaction generation for planning and planner evaluation. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 7036–7043

2021
[253]

Jinsung Yoon, Daniel Jarrett, and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2019. Time-series Generative Adversarial Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 32. Curran Associat...

2019
[254]

Handi Yu and Xin Li. 2018. Intelligent corner synthesis via cycle-consistent generative adversarial networks for efficient validation of autonomous driving systems. In 2018 23rd Asia and South Pacific design automation conference (ASP-DAC) . IEEE, 9–15

2018
[255]

Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2017. SeqGAN: Sequence Generative Adversarial Nets with Policy Gradient. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 31, 1 (Feb. 2017). doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10804

2017 doi
[256]

Ye Yuan and Kris Kitani. 2020. Dlow: Diversifying latent flows for diverse human motion prediction. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 346–364

2020
[257]

Wei Zhan, Liting Sun, Di Wang, Haojie Shi, Aubrey Clausse, Maximilian Naumann, Julius Kummerle, Hendrik Konigshof, Christoph Stiller, Arnaud de La Fortelle, et al. 2019. Interaction dataset: An international, adversarial and cooperative motion dataset in interactive driving sc...

2019 arXiv
[258]

Jiawei Zhang, Chejian Xu, and Bo Li. 2024. Chatscene: Knowledge-enabled safety-critical scenario generation for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 15459–15469

2024
[259]

Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 3836–3847

2023
[260]

Mengshi Zhang, Yuqun Zhang, Lingming Zhang, Cong Liu, and Sarfraz Khurshid. 2018. DeepRoad: GAN-based metamorphic testing and input validation framework for autonomous driving systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineeri...

2018
[261]

Qingzhao Zhang, Shengtuo Hu, Jiachen Sun, Qi Alfred Chen, and Z Morley Mao. 2022. On adversarial robustness of trajectory prediction for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 15159–15168

2022
[262]

Shenyu Zhang, Jiaguo Tian, Zhengbang Zhu, Shan Huang, Jucheng Yang, and Weinan Zhang. 2025. Drivegen: Towards infinite diverse traffic scenarios with large models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05808 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[263]

Xinhai Zhang, Jianbo Tao, Kaige Tan, Martin Törngren, José Manuel Gaspar Sánchez, Muhammad Rusyadi Ramli, Xin Tao, Magnus Gyllenhammar, Franz Wotawa, Naveen Mohan, et al. 2022. Finding critical scenarios for automated driving systems: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Transacti...

2022
[264]

Haonan Zhao, Yiting Wang, Thomas Bashford-Rogers, Valentina Donzella, and Kurt Debattista. 2024. Exploring Generative AI for Sim2Real in Driving Data Synthesis. In 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . 3071–3077. doi:10.1109/IV55156.2024.10588493

2024
[265]

Yuyu Zhao, Shoucai Jing, Xiangmo Zhao, and Fei Hui. 2023. Generalization Generation of Dangerous Lane-Changing Scenarios for Automated Vehicle Testing. In CICTP 2023. 56–66

2023
[266]

Yongqi Zhao, Wenbo Xiao, Tomislav Mihalj, Jia Hu, and Arno Eichberger. 2024. Chat2scenario: Scenario extraction from dataset through utilization of large language model. In 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 559–566

2024
[267]

Yongqi Zhao, Ji Zhou, Dong Bi, Tomislav Mihalj, Jia Hu, and Arno Eichberger. 2025. A Survey on the Application of Large Language Models in Scenario-Based Testing of Automated Driving Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16587 (2025)

2025
[268]

Ziyuan Zhong, Davis Rempe, Yuxiao Chen, Boris Ivanovic, Yulong Cao, Danfei Xu, Marco Pavone, and Baishakhi Ray. 2023. Language-Guided Traffic Simulation via Scene-Level Diffusion. In Proceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research,...

2023
[269]

Ziyuan Zhong, Davis Rempe, Danfei Xu, Yuxiao Chen, Sushant Veer, Tong Che, Baishakhi Ray, and Marco Pavone. 2023. Guided Conditional Diffusion for Controllable Traffic Simulation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . 3560–3566. doi:10.1109/...

2023
[270]

Junjie Zhou, Lin Wang, Qiang Meng, and Xiaofan Wang. 2024. Diffroad: Realistic and diverse road scenario generation for autonomous vehicle testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09451 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[271]

Xiaoji Zhou, Yuqi Huang, Jian Zhang, Jingjin Shao, Deng Pan, and Penghui Li. 2025. Automatic Generation Method for Autonomous Driving Simulation Scenarios Based on Large Language Model. In The Proceedings of 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Autonomo...

2025
[272]

Xingcheng Zhou, Mingyu Liu, Ekim Yurtsever, Bare Luka Zagar, Walter Zimmer, Hu Cao, and Alois C Knoll. 2024. Vision language models in autonomous driving: A survey and outlook. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

2024
[273]

Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. 2017. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 2223–2232

2017
[274]

Yuxuan Zhu, Shiyi Wang, Wenqing Zhong, Nianchen Shen, Yunqi Li, Siqi Wang, Zhiheng Li, Cathy Wu, Zhengbing He, and Li Li. 2024. Will large language models be a panacea to autonomous driving? arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2409. Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; a...

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Erfan Aasi, Phat Nguyen, Shiva Sreeram, Guy Rosman, Sertac Karaman, and Daniela Rus. 2024. Generating out-of-distribution scenarios using language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16554 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

O’Kelly, Alena Rodionova, and Rahul Mangharam

Houssam Abbas, Matthew E. O’Kelly, Alena Rodionova, and Rahul Mangharam. 2017. A Driver’s License Test for Driverless Vehicles. Mechanical Engineering 139, 12 (12 2017), S13–S16. doi:10.1115/1.2017-Dec-9

work page doi:10.1115/1.2017-dec-9 2017

[3] [3]

ACM. 2025. ACM Digital Library. https://dl.acm.org/ (last accessed: July 11 2025)

2025

[4] [4]

Jubril Gbolahan Adigun, Matteo Camilli, Michael Felderer, Andrea Giusti, Dominik T Matt, Anna Perini, Barbara Russo, and Angelo Susi. 2022. Collaborative Artificial Intelligence Needs Stronger Assurances Driven by Risks. Computer 55, 3 (2022), 52–63. doi:10.1109/MC.2021.3131990

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 23716–23736

2022

[6] [6]

Matthias Althoff, Markus Koschi, and Stefanie Manzinger. 2017. CommonRoad: Composable benchmarks for motion planning on roads. In 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 719–726

2017

[7] [7]

Mohammad Hossein Amini and Shiva Nejati. 2024. Bridging the gap between real-world and synthetic images for testing autonomous driving systems. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering . 732–744

2024

[8] [8]

Anthropic. [n. d.]. The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:268232499