Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 174 references

Large Foundation Models for Trajectory Prediction in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Large language models and multimodal language models are becoming the state of the art for trajectory prediction in autonomous driving, achieving up to a 4x reduction in collision rates by reasoning about scenes in language.

desk verdict Useful survey of LLM trajectory prediction, but the SOTA claim is contradicted by its own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10570 v1 pith:DZVDOW6U submitted 2025-09-11 cs.RO cs.AI

Wei Dai , Shengen Wu , Wei Wu , Zhenhao Wang , Sisuo Lyu , Haicheng Liao , Limin Yu , Weiping Ding
show 2 more authors
Runwei Guan Yutao Yue
This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords TrajectorypredictionLargelanguagemodelsMultimodalAutonomousdrivingChain-of-thoughtreasoningTrajectory-languagemappingnuScenesETH-UCY
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 argues that large foundation models—especially large language models and multimodal large language models—are transforming trajectory prediction from a pattern-matching task into a semantic reasoning task. By converting continuous motion into discrete tokens or textual descriptions, aligning those with visual and linguistic scene context, and constraining outputs with traffic rules and commonsense through chain-of-thought reasoning, these models gain interpretability, generalization to rare scenarios, and safety. The paper's central empirical claim is that LLM-based methods now match or beat deep learning baselines on standard benchmarks, with collision rates dropping by more than 4x at the 3-second horizon in the reported nuScenes comparisons. A sympathetic reader takes this as evidence that language-grounded prediction is becoming the leading paradigm for autonomous driving motion forecasting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the LLM-centric trajectory prediction framework, built on three pillars: trajectory-language mapping (e.g., discretizing trajectories with vector quantization or curve parameterization, or representing them as floating-point text), multimodal fusion (shared scene encoders, cross-modal attention, and visual-language alignment), and constraint-guided reasoning (chain-of-thought decomposition with traffic rules, causal analysis, and risk assessment). This framework converts continuous kinematics into symbolic representations that LLMs can reason over, aligns them with visual and textual scene semantics, and generates both geometrically precise trajectories and natural-lang

What would settle it

Take any leading LLM-based predictor (for example DriveVLM-Dual or GUIDE-CoT) and any top deep-learning baseline, run both on identical data splits with identical sample counts, metrics, and horizon settings, and check whether the reported collision-rate gap (e.g., 0.10% vs 0.33% average) and ETH-UCY gains persist; a smaller or reversed gap under controlled conditions would falsify the survey's state-of-the-art conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs and MLLMs shift trajectory prediction from low-level pattern recognition to semantic understanding and cognitive reasoning. It organizes the field into three core methodologies: trajectory-language mapping, which discretizes trajectories into tokens or textual descriptions; multimodal fusion, which aligns kinematic, visual, and linguistic features into a joint semantic space; and constraint-based reasoning, which uses chain-of-thought prompting to enforce traffic rules and physical constraints. On this basis, the survey asserts that LLM-based methods achieve state-of-the-art results: on nuScenes, DriveVLM-Dual and SOLVE-VLM report average collision rate

Load-bearing premise

The survey's state-of-the-art conclusion rests on assuming that the raw benchmark numbers it compares across different papers actually measure the same thing under the same protocol—that a nuScenes ego L2 and collision-rate number from an end-to-end planner is comparable to a trajectory prediction number from another, and that ETH-UCY minADE/minFDE values were produced with identical K, data splits, and post-processing; if these numbers are not directly comparable, the centra

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the survey's central claim holds, LLM- and MLLM-based trajectory predictors become the leading paradigm for motion forecasting in autonomous driving, replacing pure deep learning baselines on accuracy and safety metrics.
  • Trajectory prediction becomes inherently more interpretable: models can output step-by-step rationales such as 'yield to pedestrian at crosswalk' alongside predicted coordinates, which supports safety certification and human oversight.
  • Safety gains concentrate at longer horizons: reported 3-second collision rates drop to 0.17% for DriveVLM-Dual versus 0.67-0.85% for most deep learning baselines, suggesting language-based reasoning is particularly valuable for complex, multi-step prediction.
  • Pedestrian trajectory prediction can be reformulated as a language modeling or question-answering task, matching or beating deep learning models on ETH-UCY benchmarks while providing more consistent performance across different scenes.
  • The main practical bottleneck shifts from accuracy to latency: autoregressive decoding in LLMs (often over 100 ms) must be reduced to meet vehicle control cycles (under 50 ms), making efficient inference the critical deployment challenge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A controlled apples-to-apples evaluation is the natural next step: re-running leading LLM-based and deep learning predictors under identical data splits, sample counts, metrics, and sensor inputs could either confirm or overturn the state-of-the-art claim the survey derives from heterogeneous published numbers.
  • The safety improvements may stem more from object-level semantic labels and structured reasoning than from the language model per se, which suggests that lighter-weight models trained on semantic annotations could capture much of the benefit at lower computational cost.
  • If trajectory-language mapping succeeds, it opens a path toward unifying motion prediction with natural language driver commands, human feedback, and interactive negotiation, enabling more human-like and adjustable driving behavior.
  • The reported results are mostly open-loop benchmarks; closed-loop evaluation in simulation would test whether language-grounded predictions also improve actual driving outcomes such as takeover rates and collision avoidance in interactive scenarios.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This survey reviews the emerging use of Large Foundation Models (LFMs), especially LLMs and MLLMs, for trajectory prediction in autonomous driving. It proposes a three-pillar taxonomy — trajectory-language mapping, multimodal fusion, and constraint-based reasoning — and organizes recent work on vehicle, pedestrian, and multi-agent prediction. It also tabulates open-source models, datasets, evaluation metrics, and benchmark results, and discusses challenges such as latency, data scarcity, and robustness. The paper makes strong claims that LFMs improve interpretability, safety, and generalization, that LLM-based methods achieve state-of-the-art trajectory prediction, and that they reduce collision rates by 4× versus deep-learning baselines.

Significance. As a survey, the paper has value as a broad compilation of recent work at the intersection of LLMs/MLLMs and trajectory prediction. Its taxonomy is a useful organizing device, and the tables of open-source models, datasets, and computational resources are likely to be a convenient reference for practitioners. The discussion of open challenges is balanced and points to concrete future directions. However, the central quantitative claims are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper itself. Table IX evaluates open-loop planning metrics rather than trajectory prediction as defined in Section II, and Table X shows that the best LLM-based pedestrian predictors are competitive with, but not clearly better than, leading deep-learning methods. The paper therefore currently provides a useful catalog and taxonomy, but not a substantiated claim of a new state of the art. After the claims are corrected and the benchmark discussion is sharpened, the survey could become a solid reference.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A, Table IX] The table is titled "Vehicle Trajectory Prediction Models on nuScenes," but the reported metrics — ego-vehicle L2 and collision rate at 1/2/3 s — are open-loop planning metrics used by end-to-end planners such as UniAD, VAD-Base, AD-MLP, and BEV-Planner. These are not trajectory-prediction metrics under the task formulation in §II, which concerns predicting future states of multiple traffic participants and standard evaluation with minADE/minFDE or miss rate. Thus the statements in §IV.A.c that "the results clearly indicate ... LLM-based methods are advancing the state-of-the-art in vehicle trajectory prediction" and in §VI that "LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance" are unsupported by the data in that table. The paper should either add trajectory-prediction benchmark results (e.g., nuScenes motion forecasting, Waymo Open Motion) or explicitly restrict the claim to open-loop plannin
  2. [§IV.B, Table X] The text states that "LLMs Pushing the Frontier" and that LLM-based methods establish a new state of the art. The table does not support this. The best LLM-based average minADE/minFDE values are LMTraj-SUP (0.22/0.32) and GUIDE-CoT (0.24/0.31), while several conventional deep-learning methods achieve better or equal minADE values: MoFlow (0.20/0.32), MemoNet (0.21/0.35), NPSN (0.21/0.36), SocialVAE (0.21/0.33), and EigenTrajectory (0.21/0.34). The correct conclusion from Table X is that LLM-based methods are competitive but not state of the art. This affects the paper's central claim and should be revised.
  3. [§VI, Conclusion and §IV.A.c] The claim that LLM-based methods reduce collision rates by 4× versus baselines is based on Table IX, comparing DriveVLM-Dual's 3 s collision rate of 0.17% with deep-learning planners at 0.67–0.85%. Even if those numbers are reliable, they quantify open-loop ego planning, not trajectory prediction quality or prediction safety as defined in the paper. The conclusion should be qualified to say that certain LLM-based planners report lower collision rates in open-loop nuScenes evaluation, and should not be presented as a general property of LLM-based trajectory prediction.
  4. [Tables IX and X] The paper compiles benchmark numbers from many different papers without reporting the evaluation protocols needed for comparability. For ETH-UCY, the minADE/minFDE values depend on K (usually 20), observation and prediction horizons, and splits; the table does not state these details for each row. For nuScenes, the set of agents used for L2 planning evaluation, the ego-status definitions, and the collision-checking procedure can differ across methods; indeed, Table IX contains missing values for EMMA, OpenEMMA, and LightEMMA. The SOTA conclusions rest on cross-paper comparability of these numbers. The authors should add a column or footnote stating protocol details, or explicitly describe the comparison as indicative rather than head-to-head.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables throughout] There are several typos and naming inconsistencies: Table I has "porediction" instead of "prediction"; Table VII lists "LC-LMM" where the method name elsewhere is "LC-LLM"; Figure 5 has "Wavpoints" instead of "Waypoints"; Table VI mixes "OpenEMMA" and "ReCogDrive" versus the text's "openEMMA" and "RecogDrive." A careful editing pass would help.
  2. [§III.A, reference [64]] The citation "Da Yu" is an image-captioning model for unmanned surface vehicles, not a trajectory-prediction method. It appears in the scenario-description part of the survey as an example MLLM, but it is not applied to trajectory prediction. Either remove it or explicitly identify it as a general MLLM example.
  3. [§III taxonomy] The paper states that the three categories 'exhaustively cover' LLM trajectory prediction methods. Several surveyed methods (e.g., CoT-Drive, GenFollower, iMotion-LLM) fit multiple categories simultaneously. The authors should clarify that the taxonomy is functional and non-exclusive, or give clear decision rules for assignment.
  4. [Table III and Table IV] Table III reports "breakthrough" claims such as the TCP 37% collision-rate reduction and DriveSuprim's 93.5% PDMS score without specifying benchmark conditions or sources in the table itself. Table IV relies on manufacturer safety reports from Waymo and Tesla; the paper should clarify that these are self-reported industry numbers rather than peer-reviewed independent evaluations.
  5. [Figure 4] The figure on publication distribution in top-tier venues does not describe the source of the publication list or the search/selection criteria. Adding a sentence on the query used, time frame, and venue selection would make the figure reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey synthesizes external results; no claim reduces to its own inputs or fitted parameters.

full rationale

This is a survey paper with no mathematical derivation chain. The central claims—that LFM/LLM methods improve interpretability and prediction safety—are supported by citing external published systems and benchmark tables (Tables IX and X) that reproduce numbers from independent papers (UniAD, VAD, BEV-Planner++, DriveVLM, EMMA, SOLVE-VLM, LMTraj-SUP, GUIDE-CoT, etc.). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to derive. The only formulas are the standard minADE/minFDE definitions (Eqs. 1-2), which are metric definitions, not circular reductions. There are self-citations ([64] Da Yu, [81] CoT-Drive), but they are used as examples/exemplars in a taxonomy, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz justifications; CoT-Drive is peer-reviewed, and the survey's SOTA conclusion rests on the external benchmark rows rather than on those two citations. The strongest concern raised by a reader—that Table IX reports ego-planning L2/collision metrics rather than motion-forecasting minADE/minFDE—is a benchmark-comparability / task-mismatch issue, not a circularity issue: the numbers are not constructed to equal the paper's own inputs, and the tables are transparently reproduced from the cited systems. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

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

No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the 'LLM-Centric Prediction Framework' in Fig. 5 is a conceptual diagram rather than an invented entity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Benchmark numbers in Tables IX and X are accurate, complete, and directly comparable across methods and evaluation protocols.
    The survey draws its SOTA conclusions in Section IV from cross-paper point estimates without controlling for different metrics, splits, or sampling procedures.
  • domain assumption Large language models contain transferable commonsense and traffic-rule knowledge that improves trajectory prediction safety and generalization.
    This is the field-level premise the survey adopts as its thesis; it is not demonstrated by the survey itself, only supported by selected citations.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-part taxonomy (trajectory-language mapping, multimodal fusion, constraint-based reasoning) exhaustively covers contemporary LLM-based trajectory prediction methods.
    The taxonomy is constructed by the authors in Section III and used as the selection criterion for reviewed papers, potentially excluding approaches that do not fit the frame.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Foundation Models for Trajectory Prediction in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZVDOW6U

@misc{pith2026250910570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Foundation Models for Trajectory Prediction in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZVDOW6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10570}
}
read the original abstract

Trajectory prediction serves as a critical functionality in autonomous driving, enabling the anticipation of future motion paths for traffic participants such as vehicles and pedestrians, which is essential for driving safety. Although conventional deep learning methods have improved accuracy, they remain hindered by inherent limitations, including lack of interpretability, heavy reliance on large-scale annotated data, and weak generalization in long-tail scenarios. The rise of Large Foundation Models (LFMs) is transforming the research paradigm of trajectory prediction. This survey offers a systematic review of recent advances in LFMs, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) for trajectory prediction. By integrating linguistic and scene semantics, LFMs facilitate interpretable contextual reasoning, significantly enhancing prediction safety and generalization in complex environments. The article highlights three core methodologies: trajectory-language mapping, multimodal fusion, and constraint-based reasoning. It covers prediction tasks for both vehicles and pedestrians, evaluation metrics, and dataset analyses. Key challenges such as computational latency, data scarcity, and real-world robustness are discussed, along with future research directions including low-latency inference, causality-aware modeling, and motion foundation models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interaction and Trajectory Prediction for Ego-Vehicle in Autonomous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Timeline of Trajectory Prediction Methodologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of Research Publications on LLM-based Trajectory Pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Architectural Overview of LLM-Centric Trajectory Prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A Taxonomy of Datasets for Trajectory Prediction. Representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

174 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Multiple futures prediction,

    C. Tang and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Multiple futures prediction,”Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Online vehicle trajectory prediction using policy anticipation network and optimization-based context reasoning,

    W. Ding and S. Shen, “Online vehicle trajectory prediction using policy anticipation network and optimization-based context reasoning,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 9610–9616

    2019

  3. [3]

    Trajectory prediction for autonomous driving based on multi-head attention with joint agent-map representation,

    K. Messaoud, N. Deo, M. M. Trivedi, and F. Nashashibi, “Trajectory prediction for autonomous driving based on multi-head attention with joint agent-map representation,” in2021 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2021, pp. 165–170

    2021

  4. [4]

    Trajectory prediction with linguistic representations,

    Y .-L. Kuo, X. Huang, A. Barbu, S. G. McGill, B. Katz, J. J. Leonard, and G. Rosman, “Trajectory prediction with linguistic representations,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2868–2875. SEPTEMBER 2025 18 TABLE XI LIST OFABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Full Term LFMs Large Foundation Models LLMs Large Language M...

    2022

  5. [5]

    Grip: Graph-based interaction-aware trajectory prediction,

    X. Li, X. Ying, and M. C. Chuah, “Grip: Graph-based interaction-aware trajectory prediction,” in2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 3960–3966

    2019

  6. [6]

    Vehicle trajectory prediction using intention-based conditional variational autoencoder,

    X. Feng, Z. Cen, J. Hu, and Y . Zhang, “Vehicle trajectory prediction using intention-based conditional variational autoencoder,” in2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 3514–3519

    2019

  7. [7]

    Explainability of deep vision-based autonomous driving systems: Review and chal- lenges,

    ´E. Zablocki, H. Ben-Younes, P. P ´erez, and M. Cord, “Explainability of deep vision-based autonomous driving systems: Review and chal- lenges,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 130, no. 10, pp. 2425–2452, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Uqnet: Quantifying uncer- tainty in trajectory prediction by a non-parametric and generalizable approach,

    G. Li, Z. Li, V . Knoop, and H. van Lint, “Uqnet: Quantifying uncer- tainty in trajectory prediction by a non-parametric and generalizable approach,”Available at SSRN 4241523, 2022

    2022

Show all 174 references
  1. [9]

    LLM4Drive: A Survey of Large Language Models for Autonomous Driving,

    Z. Yang, X. Jia, H. Li, and J. Yan, “LLM4Drive: A Survey of Large Language Models for Autonomous Driving,” Aug. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models,

    F. Xu, Q. Hao, Z. Zong, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Wang, X. Lan, J. Gong, T. Ouyang, F. Meng, C. Shao, Y . Yan, Q. Yang, Y . Song, S. Ren, X. Hu, Y . Li, J. Feng, C. Gao, and Y . Li, “Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models,” Jan. 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    A Comprehensive Review of Multimodal Large Language Models: Performance and Challenges Across Different Tasks,

    J. Wang, H. Jiang, Y . Liu, C. Ma, X. Zhang, Y . Pan, M. Liu, P. Gu, S. Xia, W. Li, Y . Zhang, Z. Wu, Z. Liu, T. Zhong, B. Ge, T. Zhang, N. Qiang, X. Hu, X. Jiang, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, D. Shen, T. Liu, and S. Zhang, “A Comprehensive Review of Multimodal Large Language Models: P...

    2024

  4. [12]

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

    Y . Cui, H. Lin, S. Yang, Y . Wang, Y . Huang, and H. Chen, “Chain- of-Thought for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Prospects,” May 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Foundation models for autonomous driving perception: A survey through core capabilities,

    R. Sathyam and Y . Li, “Foundation models for autonomous driving perception: A survey through core capabilities,”IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    A survey on trajectory-prediction methods for autonomous driving,

    Y . Huang, J. Du, Z. Yang, Z. Zhou, L. Zhang, and H. Chen, “A survey on trajectory-prediction methods for autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 652–674, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Incorporating driving knowledge in deep learn- ing based vehicle trajectory prediction: A survey,

    Z. Ding and H. Zhao, “Incorporating driving knowledge in deep learn- ing based vehicle trajectory prediction: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 3996–4015, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Pedestrian trajectory prediction in pedestrian-vehicle mixed envi- ronments: A systematic review,

    M. Golchoubian, M. Ghafurian, K. Dautenhahn, and N. L. Azad, “Pedestrian trajectory prediction in pedestrian-vehicle mixed envi- ronments: A systematic review,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 11 544–11 567, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Real time trajectory prediction for collision risk estimation between vehicles,

    S. Ammoun and F. Nashashibi, “Real time trajectory prediction for collision risk estimation between vehicles,” in2009 IEEE 5Th in- ternational conference on intelligent computer communication and processing. IEEE, 2009, pp. 417–422

    2009

  10. [18]

    Cooperative path prediction in vehicular environments,

    P. Lytrivis, G. Thomaidis, and A. Amditis, “Cooperative path prediction in vehicular environments,” in2008 11th international IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems. IEEE, 2008, pp. 803–808

    2008

  11. [19]

    Situation assessment of an autonomous emergency brake for arbitrary vehicle-to-vehicle collision scenarios,

    N. Kaempchen, B. Schiele, and K. Dietmayer, “Situation assessment of an autonomous emergency brake for arbitrary vehicle-to-vehicle collision scenarios,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 678–687, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Interaction-aware motion prediction for autonomous driving: A mul- tiple model kalman filtering scheme,

    V . Lefkopoulos, M. Menner, A. Domahidi, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Interaction-aware motion prediction for autonomous driving: A mul- tiple model kalman filtering scheme,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 80–87, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Trajectory planning and safety assessment of autonomous vehicles based on motion prediction and model predictive control,

    Y . Wang, Z. Liu, Z. Zuo, Z. Li, L. Wang, and X. Luo, “Trajectory planning and safety assessment of autonomous vehicles based on motion prediction and model predictive control,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 8546–8556, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    How would surround vehicles move? a unified framework for maneuver classification and motion prediction,

    N. Deo, A. Rangesh, and M. M. Trivedi, “How would surround vehicles move? a unified framework for maneuver classification and motion prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 129–140, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Online maneuver recognition and multimodal trajectory prediction for intersection assistance using non-parametric regression,

    Q. Tran and J. Firl, “Online maneuver recognition and multimodal trajectory prediction for intersection assistance using non-parametric regression,” in2014 ieee intelligent vehicles symposium proceedings. IEEE, 2014, pp. 918–923

    2014

  16. [24]

    Improved driving behaviors prediction based on fuzzy logic-hidden markov model (fl-hmm),

    Q. Deng and D. S ¨offker, “Improved driving behaviors prediction based on fuzzy logic-hidden markov model (fl-hmm),” in2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 2003–2008

    2018

  17. [25]

    A self-adaptive parameter selection trajectory prediction approach via hidden markov models,

    S. Qiao, D. Shen, X. Wang, N. Han, and W. Zhu, “A self-adaptive parameter selection trajectory prediction approach via hidden markov models,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 284–296, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Probabilistic intention prediction and trajectory generation based on dynamic bayesian net- works,

    G. He, X. Li, Y . Lv, B. Gao, and H. Chen, “Probabilistic intention prediction and trajectory generation based on dynamic bayesian net- works,” in2019 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 2646–2651

    2019

  19. [27]

    Convolutional social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction,

    N. Deo and M. M. Trivedi, “Convolutional social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2018, pp. 1468– 1476

    2018

  20. [28]

    Multi-head atten- tion based probabilistic vehicle trajectory prediction,

    H. Kim, D. Kim, G. Kim, J. Cho, and K. Huh, “Multi-head atten- tion based probabilistic vehicle trajectory prediction,” in2020 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1720–1725

    2020

  21. [29]

    Vectornet: Encoding hd maps and agent dynamics from vectorized representation,

    J. Gao, C. Sun, H. Zhao, Y . Shen, D. Anguelov, C. Li, and C. Schmid, “Vectornet: Encoding hd maps and agent dynamics from vectorized representation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 11 525–11 533

    2020

  22. [30]

    Deep inverse reinforcement learning for behavior prediction in autonomous driving: Accurate forecasts of vehicle motion,

    T. Fernando, S. Denman, S. Sridharan, and C. Fookes, “Deep inverse reinforcement learning for behavior prediction in autonomous driving: Accurate forecasts of vehicle motion,”IEEE Signal Processing Maga- zine, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Imitating driver behavior with generative adversarial networks,

    A. Kuefler, J. Morton, T. Wheeler, and M. Kochenderfer, “Imitating driver behavior with generative adversarial networks,” in2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2017, pp. 204–211

    2017

  24. [32]

    Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforcement learning from human feedback,

    S. Casper, X. Davies, C. Shi, T. K. Gilbert, J. Scheurer, J. Rando, R. Freedman, T. Korbak, D. Lindner, P. Freireet al., “Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforcement learning from human feedback,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15217, 2023. SEPTEMBER 2025 19

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Learning from naturalistic driving data for human-like autonomous highway driving,

    D. Xu, Z. Ding, X. He, H. Zhao, M. Moze, F. Aioun, and F. Guillemard, “Learning from naturalistic driving data for human-like autonomous highway driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 7341–7354, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Off-road autonomous vehicles traversability analysis and trajectory planning based on deep inverse reinforcement learning,

    Z. Zhu, N. Li, R. Sun, D. Xu, and H. Zhao, “Off-road autonomous vehicles traversability analysis and trajectory planning based on deep inverse reinforcement learning,” in2020 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2020, pp. 971–977

    2020

  27. [35]

    Social force models for pedestrian traffic–state of the art,

    X. Chen, M. Treiber, V . Kanagaraj, and H. Li, “Social force models for pedestrian traffic–state of the art,”Transport reviews, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 625–653, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Social force based microscopic modeling of vehicle-crowd interaction,

    D. Yang, ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, and K. Redmill, “Social force based microscopic modeling of vehicle-crowd interaction,” in2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1537–1542

    2018

  29. [37]

    Pedestrian collision risk assessment based on state estimation and motion prediction,

    L. Zhang, K. Yuan, H. Chu, Y . Huang, H. Ding, J. Yuan, and H. Chen, “Pedestrian collision risk assessment based on state estimation and motion prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 98–111, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    A study of interference between pedestrians and vehicles in drop-off area at railway station based on celluar automata,

    J. Cheng and D. Li, “A study of interference between pedestrians and vehicles in drop-off area at railway station based on celluar automata,” in2019 5th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 913–919

    2019

  31. [39]

    Top-view trajectories: A pedestrian dataset of vehicle-crowd interaction from controlled experiments and crowded campus,

    D. Yang, L. Li, K. Redmill, and ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, “Top-view trajectories: A pedestrian dataset of vehicle-crowd interaction from controlled experiments and crowded campus,” in2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2019, pp. 899–904

    2019

  32. [40]

    Agent- based modeling for predicting pedestrian trajectories around an au- tonomous vehicle,

    M. Pr ´edhumeau, L. Mancheva, J. Dugdale, and A. Spalanzani, “Agent- based modeling for predicting pedestrian trajectories around an au- tonomous vehicle,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 73, pp. 1385–1433, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Multi-agent trajectory prediction with spatio- temporal sequence fusion,

    Y . Wang and S. Chen, “Multi-agent trajectory prediction with spatio- temporal sequence fusion,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 25, pp. 13–23, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Ltn: Long-term network for long-term motion prediction,

    Y . Wang, “Ltn: Long-term network for long-term motion prediction,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1845–1852

    2021

  35. [43]

    Dynamic attention- based cvae-gan for pedestrian trajectory prediction,

    Z. Zhou, G. Huang, Z. Su, Y . Li, and W. Hua, “Dynamic attention- based cvae-gan for pedestrian trajectory prediction,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 704–711, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Interactive behavior prediction for heterogeneous traffic participants in the urban road: A graph-neural- network-based multitask learning framework,

    Z. Li, J. Gong, C. Lu, and Y . Yi, “Interactive behavior prediction for heterogeneous traffic participants in the urban road: A graph-neural- network-based multitask learning framework,”IEEE/ASME Transac- tions on Mechatronics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1339–1349, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    A hierarchical framework for interactive behaviour prediction of heterogeneous traffic participants based on graph neural network,

    Z. Li, C. Lu, Y . Yi, and J. Gong, “A hierarchical framework for interactive behaviour prediction of heterogeneous traffic participants based on graph neural network,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 9102–9114, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Trajectory forecasting based on prior-aware directed graph convolutional neural network,

    Y . Su, J. Du, Y . Li, X. Li, R. Liang, Z. Hua, and J. Zhou, “Trajectory forecasting based on prior-aware directed graph convolutional neural network,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 16 773–16 785, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Loki: Long term and key intentions for trajectory prediction,

    H. Girase, H. Gang, S. Malla, J. Li, A. Kanehara, K. Mangalam, and C. Choi, “Loki: Long term and key intentions for trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 9803–9812

    2021

  40. [48]

    Trajectory modelling in shared spaces: Expert-based vs. deep learning approach?

    H. Cheng, F. T. Johora, M. Sester, and J. P. M ¨uller, “Trajectory modelling in shared spaces: Expert-based vs. deep learning approach?” inInternational Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation. Springer, 2020, pp. 13–27

    2020

  41. [49]

    Social gan: Socially acceptable trajectories with generative adversarial networks,

    A. Gupta, J. Johnson, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and A. Alahi, “Social gan: Socially acceptable trajectories with generative adversarial networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 2255–2264

    2018

  42. [50]

    An agent-based model for trajectory modelling in shared spaces: A combination of expert-based and deep learning approaches,

    F. T. Johora, H. Cheng, J. P. M ¨uller, and M. Sester, “An agent-based model for trajectory modelling in shared spaces: A combination of expert-based and deep learning approaches,” inProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, ...

    2020

  43. [51]

    Spatio-temporal graph dual-attention network for multi-agent prediction and tracking,

    J. Li, H. Ma, Z. Zhang, J. Li, and M. Tomizuka, “Spatio-temporal graph dual-attention network for multi-agent prediction and tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 556–10 569, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Vlm-ad: End-to-end autonomous driving through vision-language model supervision,

    Y . Xu, Y . Hu, Z. Zhang, G. P. Meyer, S. K. Mustikovela, S. Srini- vasa, E. M. Wolff, and X. Huang, “Vlm-ad: End-to-end autonomous driving through vision-language model supervision,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14446, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

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

    L. Chen, O. Sinavski, J. H ¨unermann, A. Karnsund, A. J. Willmott, D. Birch, D. Maund, and J. Shotton, “Driving with llms: Fusing object- level vector modality for explainable autonomous driving,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 20...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Rag-driver: Generalisable driving explanations with retrieval-augmented in-context multi-modal large language model learning,

    J. Yuan, S. Sun, D. Omeiza, B. Zhao, P. Newman, L. Kunze, and M. Gadd, “Rag-driver: Generalisable driving explanations with retrieval-augmented in-context multi-modal large language model learning,” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,

    E. Yurtsever, J. Lambert, A. Carballo, and K. Takeda, “A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,” IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 58 443–58 469, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Drivelm: Driving with graph visual question answering,

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

    2024

  50. [58]

    A language-driven navigation strategy integrating semantic maps and large language models,

    Z. Zhong, Y . He, P. Li, F. Yu, and F. Ma, “A language-driven navigation strategy integrating semantic maps and large language models,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 9753–9760

    2024

  51. [59]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clarket al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  52. [60]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 26 296–26 306

    2024

  53. [61]

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

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

    2024

  54. [62]

    Hilm-d: Enhancing mllms with multi-scale high-resolution details for autonomous driving,

    X. Ding, J. Han, H. Xu, W. Zhang, and X. Li, “Hilm-d: Enhancing mllms with multi-scale high-resolution details for autonomous driving,” International Journal of Computer Vision, pp. 1–17, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

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

    T. Choudhary, V . Dewangan, S. Chandhok, S. Priyadarshan, A. Jain, A. K. Singh, S. Srivastava, K. M. Jatavallabhula, and K. M. Krishna, “Talk2bev: Language-enhanced bird’s-eye view maps for autonomous driving,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (I...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Da yu: Towards usv-based image captioning for waterway surveillance and scene understanding,

    R. Guan, N. Ouyang, T. Xu, S. Liang, W. Dai, Y . Sun, S. Gao, S. Lai, S. Yao, X. Huet al., “Da yu: Towards usv-based image captioning for waterway surveillance and scene understanding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19288, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Dynstatf: An efficient feature fusion strategy for lidar 3d object detection,

    Y . Rong, X. Wei, T. Lin, Y . Wang, and E. Kasneci, “Dynstatf: An efficient feature fusion strategy for lidar 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 3238–3247

    2023

  58. [66]

    V2x-vit: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision transformer,

    R. Xu, H. Xiang, Z. Tu, X. Xia, M.-H. Yang, and J. Ma, “V2x-vit: Vehicle-to-everything cooperative perception with vision transformer,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 107– 124

    2022

  59. [67]

    V2v-llm: Vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative autonomous driving with multi-modal large language models,

    H.-k. Chiu, R. Hachiuma, C.-Y . Wang, S. F. Smith, Y .-C. F. Wang, and M.-H. Chen, “V2v-llm: Vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative autonomous driving with multi-modal large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09980, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

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

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

    2024

  61. [69]

    Gaia-1: A generative world model for autonomous driving,

    A. Hu, L. Russell, H. Yeo, Z. Murez, G. Fedoseev, A. Kendall, J. Shotton, and G. Corrado, “Gaia-1: A generative world model for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Visiontrap: Vision-augmented trajectory prediction guided by textual descriptions,

    S. Moon, H. Woo, H. Park, H. Jung, R. Mahjourian, H.-g. Chi, H. Lim, S. Kim, and J. Kim, “Visiontrap: Vision-augmented trajectory prediction guided by textual descriptions,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 361–379

    2024

  63. [71]

    Drivedreamer-2: Llm-enhanced world models for diverse driving video generation,

    G. Zhao, X. Wang, Z. Zhu, X. Chen, G. Huang, X. Bao, and X. Wang, “Drivedreamer-2: Llm-enhanced world models for diverse driving video generation,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 10, 2025, pp. 10 412–10 420

    2025

  64. [72]

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

    W. Wang, J. Xie, C. Hu, H. Zou, J. Fan, W. Tong, Y . Wen, S. Wu, H. Deng, Z. Liet al., “Drivemlm: Aligning multi-modal large language models with behavioral planning states for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09245, 2023. SEPTEMBER 2025 20

    2023

  65. [73]

    Multimodal trajectory prediction for intelligent connected vehicles in complex road scenar- ios based on causal reasoning and driving cognition characteristics,

    Z. Yang, J. Yang, Y . Zhou, Q. Xu, and M. Ou, “Multimodal trajectory prediction for intelligent connected vehicles in complex road scenar- ios based on causal reasoning and driving cognition characteristics,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 7259, 2025

    2025

  66. [74]

    Dualdiff+: Dual-branch diffusion for high-fidelity video generation with reward guidance,

    Z. Yang, Z. Qian, X. Li, W. Xu, G. Zhao, R. Yu, L. Zhu, and L. Liu, “Dualdiff+: Dual-branch diffusion for high-fidelity video generation with reward guidance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03689, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Lingo-1: Exploring natural language for autonomous driving,

    W. AI, “Lingo-1: Exploring natural language for autonomous driving,” https://wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-autonomous-driving/, 2023, accessed: 2025-08-14

    2023

  68. [76]

    Can you text what is happening? integrating pre-trained language encoders into trajectory prediction models for autonomous driving,

    A. Keysan, A. Look, E. Kosman, G. G ¨ursun, J. Wagner, Y . Yao, and B. Rakitsch, “Can you text what is happening? integrating pre-trained language encoders into trajectory prediction models for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05282, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    How can large language models understand spatial-temporal data?

    L. Liu, S. Yu, R. Wang, Z. Ma, and Y . Shen, “How can large language models understand spatial-temporal data?”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14192, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    S4-driver: Scalable self-supervised driving multimodal large language model with spatio-temporal visual representation,

    Y . Xie, R. Xu, T. He, J.-J. Hwang, K. Luo, J. Ji, H. Lin, L. Chen, Y . Lu, Z. Lenget al., “S4-driver: Scalable self-supervised driving multimodal large language model with spatio-temporal visual representation,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Co...

    2025

  71. [79]

    imotion-llm: Motion prediction instruction tuning,

    A. Felemban, E. M. Bakr, X. Shen, J. Ding, A. Mohamed, and M. Elhoseiny, “imotion-llm: Motion prediction instruction tuning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06211, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

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

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

    2025

  73. [81]

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

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

    2025

  74. [82]

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

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

    2025

  75. [83]

    Distilling Multi- modal Large Language Models for Autonomous Driving,

    D. Hegde, R. Yasarla, H. Cai, S. Han, A. Bhattacharyya, S. Mahajan, L. Liu, R. Garrepalli, V . M. Patel, and F. Porikli, “Distilling Multi- modal Large Language Models for Autonomous Driving,” Jan. 2025

    2025

  76. [84]

    Genfollower: Enhancing car-following prediction with large language models,

    X. Chen, M. Peng, P. Tiu, Y . Wu, J. Chen, M. Zhu, and X. Zheng, “Genfollower: Enhancing car-following prediction with large language models,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    Drivinggpt: Unifying driving world modeling and planning with multi-modal autoregressive transformers,

    Y . Chen, Y . Wang, and Z. Zhang, “Drivinggpt: Unifying driving world modeling and planning with multi-modal autoregressive transformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18607, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Motionlm: Multi-agent motion forecasting as language modeling,

    A. Seff, B. Cera, D. Chen, M. Ng, A. Zhou, N. Nayakanti, K. S. Refaat, R. Al-Rfou, and B. Sapp, “Motionlm: Multi-agent motion forecasting as language modeling,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 8579–8590

    2023

  79. [87]

    Dsdrive: Distilling large language model for lightweight end-to-end autonomous driving with unified reasoning and planning,

    W. Liu, P. Liu, and J. Ma, “Dsdrive: Distilling large language model for lightweight end-to-end autonomous driving with unified reasoning and planning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05360, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Tokenize the world into object-level knowledge to address long-tail events in autonomous driving,

    R. Tian, B. Li, X. Weng, Y . Chen, E. Schmerling, Y . Wang, B. Ivanovic, and M. Pavone, “Tokenize the world into object-level knowledge to address long-tail events in autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00959, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Waymo safety report: On the road to safer mobility,

    W. LLC, “Waymo safety report: On the road to safer mobility,” Waymo LLC, Tech. Rep., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://waymo. com/intl/zh-cn/safety/

    2023

  82. [90]

    Building a credible case for safety: Waymo’s approach for the determination of absence of unreasonable risk,

    F. Favaro, L. Fraade-Blanar, S. Schnelle, T. Victor, M. Pe ˜na, J. En- gstrom, J. Scanlon, K. Kusano, and D. Smith, “Building a credible case for safety: Waymo’s approach for the determination of absence of unreasonable risk,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01917, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    (2025) Tesla vehicle safety report

    Tesla. (2025) Tesla vehicle safety report. Data updated quarterly. Accessed: August 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.tesla. com/VehicleSafetyReport

    2025

  84. [92]

    Generative ai for autonomous driving: A review,

    K. Winter, A. Vivekanandan, R. Polley, Y . Shen, C. Schlauch, M.- K. Bouzidi, B. Derajic, N. Grabowsky, A. Mariani, D. Rochauet al., “Generative ai for autonomous driving: A review,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15863, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

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

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

    2024

  86. [94]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2024 tesla impact report,

    I. Tesla, “2024 tesla impact report,” p. 42, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.tesla.com/ns videos/2024-tesla-impact-report.pdf

    2024

  88. [96]

    Chuck cook tests tesla FSD v12.4.1 at his difficult unprotected left turn,

    C. Cook, “Chuck cook tests tesla FSD v12.4.1 at his difficult unprotected left turn,” Tesla Oracle, jun 2024, accessed: 2024- 06-21. [Online]. Available: https://www.teslaoracle.com/2024/06/21/ chuck-cook-tests-tesla-fsd-v12-4-1-at-his-difficult-unprotected-left-turn-video/

    2024

  89. [97]

    Li auto halo os technical overview,

    L. Auto, “Li auto halo os technical overview,” Li Auto, Tech. Rep.,

  90. [98]

    (2024) Xiaomi pilot: Intelligent driving system

    Xiaomi Inc. (2024) Xiaomi pilot: Intelligent driving system. Official technical documentation of Xiaomi’s intelligent driving system. [Online]. Available: https://www.xiaomiev.com/pilot

    2024

  91. [99]

    Eyeq™6 system-on-chip technical overview,

    Mobileye Technical Team, “Eyeq™6 system-on-chip technical overview,” Mobileye Global Inc., Tech. Rep., 2025

    2025

  92. [100]

    Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline,

    P. Wu, X. Jia, L. Chen, J. Yan, H. Li, and Y . Qiao, “Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 6119–6132, 2022

    2022

  93. [101]

    Drivesuprim: Towards precise trajectory selection for end-to-end plan- ning,

    W. Yao, Z. Li, S. Lan, Z. Wang, X. Sun, J. M. Alvarez, and Z. Wu, “Drivesuprim: Towards precise trajectory selection for end-to-end plan- ning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06659, 2025

    2025

  94. [102]

    Autodrrt 2.0: A distributed robust real- time framework for autonomous driving,

    Inspur Technical Team, “Autodrrt 2.0: A distributed robust real- time framework for autonomous driving,” Inspur Information, White Paper INSPUR-TR-2024-12, 2024, technical report on next- gen autonomous driving framework. [Online]. Available: https: //www.ieisystem.com/baike/1...

    2024

  95. [103]

    (2023) Introducing GAIA-1: Generative world models for autonomous driving

    Wayve. (2023) Introducing GAIA-1: Generative world models for autonomous driving. [Online]. Available: https://wayve.ai/thinking/ introducing-gaia1/

    2023

  96. [104]

    Nio smart technology innovations,

    NIO Inc., “Nio smart technology innovations,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nio.cn/smart-technology/20241121003

    2024

  97. [105]

    Automotive software and electronics 2030,

    M. . Company, “Automotive software and electronics 2030,”McKinsey Quarterly, 2024

  98. [106]

    Survey on lidar perception in adverse weather conditions,

    M. Dreissig, D. Scheuble, F. Piewak, and J. Boedecker, “Survey on lidar perception in adverse weather conditions,” in2023 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  99. [107]

    Scalable autonomous vehicle safety validation through dynamic programming and scene decomposition,

    A. Corso, R. Lee, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Scalable autonomous vehicle safety validation through dynamic programming and scene decomposition,” in2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intel- ligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  100. [108]

    Solve: Synergy of language-vision and end-to-end networks for autonomous driving,

    X. Chen, L. Huang, T. Ma, R. Fang, S. Shi, and H. Li, “Solve: Synergy of language-vision and end-to-end networks for autonomous driving,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Con- ference, 2025, pp. 12 068–12 077

    2025

  101. [109]

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

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

    2025

  102. [110]

    Advancing Vision Zero

    Waymo. Advancing Vision Zero. Waymo. Accessed: 2025- 08-26. [Online]. Available: https://waymo.com/blog/2025/07/ advancing-vision-zero

    2025

  103. [111]

    Trajevo: Designing trajectory prediction heuristics via llm-driven evolution,

    Z. Zhao, C. Hua, F. Berto, K. Lee, Z. Ma, J. Li, and J. Park, “Trajevo: Designing trajectory prediction heuristics via llm-driven evolution,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04480, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Gpt-4v takes the wheel: Promises and challenges for pedestrian behavior prediction,

    J. Huang, P. Jiang, A. Gautam, and S. Saripalli, “Gpt-4v takes the wheel: Promises and challenges for pedestrian behavior prediction,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, vol. 3, no. 1, 2024, pp. 134–142

    2024

  105. [113]

    Guide-cot: Goal-driven and user- informed dynamic estimation for pedestrian trajectory using chain-of- thought,

    S. Kim, J. Baek, J. Kim, and J. Lee, “Guide-cot: Goal-driven and user- informed dynamic estimation for pedestrian trajectory using chain-of- thought,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06832, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Can language beat numerical regres- sion? language-based multimodal trajectory prediction,

    I. Bae, J. Lee, and H.-G. Jeon, “Can language beat numerical regres- sion? language-based multimodal trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, 2024, pp. 753–766

    2024

  107. [115]

    Trajllm: A modular llm-enhanced agent-based framework for realistic human trajectory simulation,

    C. Ju, J. Liu, S. Sinha, H. Xue, and F. Salim, “Trajllm: A modular llm-enhanced agent-based framework for realistic human trajectory simulation,” inCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, 2025, pp. 2847–2850

    2025

  108. [116]

    Lg-traj: Llm guided pedestrian trajectory prediction,

    P. S. Chib and P. Singh, “Lg-traj: Llm guided pedestrian trajectory prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08032, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Mapping the course for prompt-based structured prediction,

    M. Pauk and M. L. Pacheco, “Mapping the course for prompt-based structured prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15090, 2025

    2025

  110. [118]

    Socialformer: Social inter- action modeling with edge-enhanced heterogeneous graph transformers for trajectory prediction,

    Z. Wang, Z. Sun, J. Luettin, and L. Halilaj, “Socialformer: Social inter- action modeling with edge-enhanced heterogeneous graph transformers for trajectory prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03809, 2024. SEPTEMBER 2025 21

    2024 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Trajectory-llm: A language-based data generator for trajectory prediction in autonomous driving,

    K. Yang, Z. Guo, G. Lin, H. Dong, Z. Huang, Y . Wu, D. Zuo, J. Peng, Z. Zhong, X. Wanget al., “Trajectory-llm: A language-based data generator for trajectory prediction in autonomous driving,” in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  112. [120]

    Gpt-driver: Learning to drive with gpt,

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

    2023 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Exploring large language models for trajectory prediction: a technical perspective,

    F. Munir, T. Mihaylova, S. Azam, T. P. Kucner, and V . Kyrki, “Exploring large language models for trajectory prediction: a technical perspective,” inCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 2024, pp. 774–778

    2024

  114. [122]

    Large language models powered context-aware motion prediction in autonomous driving,

    X. Zheng, L. Wu, Z. Yan, Y . Tang, H. Zhao, C. Zhong, B. Chen, and J. Gong, “Large language models powered context-aware motion prediction in autonomous driving,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 980–985

    2024

  115. [123]

    Autovla: A vision-language-action model for end-to-end autonomous driving with adaptive reasoning and reinforcement fine-tuning,

    Z. Zhou, T. Cai, S. Z. Zhao, Y . Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Zhou, and J. Ma, “Autovla: A vision-language-action model for end-to-end autonomous driving with adaptive reasoning and reinforcement fine-tuning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13757, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Recogdrive: A reinforced cognitive framework for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Y . Li, K. Xiong, X. Guo, F. Li, S. Yan, G. Xu, L. Zhou, L. Chen, H. Sun, B. Wanget al., “Recogdrive: A reinforced cognitive framework for end-to-end autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08052, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Drivemoe: Mixture-of-experts for vision-language-action model in end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Z. Yang, Y . Chai, X. Jia, Q. Li, Y . Shao, X. Zhu, H. Su, and J. Yan, “Drivemoe: Mixture-of-experts for vision-language-action model in end-to-end autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16278, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Safeauto: Knowledge-enhanced safe autonomous driving with multimodal foun- dation models,

    J. Zhang, X. Yang, T. Wang, Y . Yao, A. Petiushko, and B. Li, “Safeauto: Knowledge-enhanced safe autonomous driving with multimodal foun- dation models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00211, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Recent advances in multi- agent human trajectory prediction: A comprehensive review,

    C. Finet, S. D. S. Martins, J.-B. Hayet, I. Karamouzas, J. Amirian, S. L. H´egarat-Mascle, J. Pettr ´e, and E. Aldea, “Recent advances in multi- agent human trajectory prediction: A comprehensive review,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14831, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Scale-aware fast r-cnn for pedestrian detection,

    J. Li, X. Liang, S. Shen, T. Xu, J. Feng, and S. Yan, “Scale-aware fast r-cnn for pedestrian detection,”IEEE transactions on Multimedia, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 985–996, 2017

    2017

  121. [129]

    Joint attention in au- tonomous driving (jaad),

    I. Kotseruba, A. Rasouli, and J. K. Tsotsos, “Joint attention in au- tonomous driving (jaad),”arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04741, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Impromptu vla: Open weights and open data for driv- ing vision-language-action models,

    H. Chi, H.-a. Gao, Z. Liu, J. Liu, C. Liu, J. Li, K. Yang, Y . Yu, Z. Wang, W. Liet al., “Impromptu vla: Open weights and open data for driv- ing vision-language-action models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23757, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Covla: Comprehensive vision-language-action dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Arai, K. Miwa, K. Sasaki, K. Watanabe, Y . Yamaguchi, S. Aoki, and I. Yamamoto, “Covla: Comprehensive vision-language-action dataset for autonomous driving,” in2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1933– 1943

    2025

  124. [132]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caineet al., “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020...

    2020

  125. [133]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

    2020

  126. [134]

    Interaction dataset: An international, adversarial and cooperative motion dataset in interactive driving scenarios with semantic maps,

    W. Zhan, L. Sun, D. Wang, H. Shi, A. Clausse, M. Naumann, J. Kum- merle, H. Konigshof, C. Stiller, A. de La Fortelleet al., “Interaction dataset: An international, adversarial and cooperative motion dataset in interactive driving scenarios with semantic maps,”arXiv preprint ar...

    1910 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Argoverse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps,

    M.-F. Chang, J. Lambert, P. Sangkloy, J. Singh, S. Bak, A. Hartnett, D. Wang, P. Carr, S. Lucey, D. Ramananet al., “Argoverse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 8748–8757

    2019

  128. [136]

    nuplan: A closed-loop ml- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles,

    H. Caesar, J. Kabzan, K. S. Tan, W. K. Fong, E. Wolff, A. Lang, L. Fletcher, O. Beijbom, and S. Omari, “nuplan: A closed-loop ml- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11810, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  129. [137]

    The apolloscape dataset for autonomous driving,

    X. Huang, X. Cheng, Q. Geng, B. Cao, D. Zhou, P. Wang, Y . Lin, and R. Yang, “The apolloscape dataset for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2018, pp. 954–960

    2018

  130. [138]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

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

    2013

  131. [139]

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

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

    2017

  132. [140]

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

    R. Krajewski, J. Bock, L. Kloeker, and L. Eckstein, “The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems,” in2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC...

    2018

  133. [141]

    Planning-oriented Autonomous Driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang, L. Lu, X. Jia, Q. Liu, J. Dai, Y . Qiao, and H. Li, “Planning-oriented Autonomous Driving,” Mar. 2023

    2023

  134. [142]

    V AD: Vectorized Scene Representation for Efficient Autonomous Driving,

    B. Jiang, S. Chen, Q. Xu, B. Liao, J. Chen, H. Zhou, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, C. Huang, and X. Wang, “V AD: Vectorized Scene Representation for Efficient Autonomous Driving,” in2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Paris, France: IEEE, Oct. 2023

    2023

  135. [143]

    Rethinking the Open-Loop Evaluation of End-to-End Autonomous Driving in nuScenes,

    J.-T. Zhai, Z. Feng, J. Du, Y . Mao, J.-J. Liu, Z. Tan, Y . Zhang, X. Ye, and J. Wang, “Rethinking the Open-Loop Evaluation of End-to-End Autonomous Driving in nuScenes,” Oct. 2023

    2023

  136. [144]

    Is Ego Status All You Need for Open-Loop End-to-End Autonomous Driving?

    Z. Li, Z. Yu, S. Lan, J. Li, J. Kautz, T. Lu, and J. M. Alvarez, “Is Ego Status All You Need for Open-Loop End-to-End Autonomous Driving?” in2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Seattle, W A, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2024, pp. 14 864–14 873

    2024

  137. [145]

    DriveVLM: The Convergence of Autonomous Driving and Large Vision-Language Models,

    X. Tian, J. Gu, B. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Wang, Z. Zhao, K. Zhan, P. Jia, X. Lang, and H. Zhao, “DriveVLM: The Convergence of Autonomous Driving and Large Vision-Language Models,” Jun. 2024

    2024

  138. [146]

    EMMA: End-to-End Multimodal Model for Autonomous Driving,

    J.-J. Hwang, R. Xu, H. Lin, W.-C. Hung, J. Ji, K. Choi, D. Huang, T. He, P. Covington, B. Sapp, Y . Zhou, J. Guo, D. Anguelov, and M. Tan, “EMMA: End-to-End Multimodal Model for Autonomous Driving,” Nov. 2024

    2024

  139. [147]

    OmniDrive: A Holistic Vision-Language Dataset for Autonomous Driving with Counterfactual Reasoning,

    S. Wang, Z. Yu, X. Jiang, S. Lan, M. Shi, N. Chang, J. Kautz, Y . Li, and J. M. Alvarez, “OmniDrive: A Holistic Vision-Language Dataset for Autonomous Driving with Counterfactual Reasoning,” Apr. 2025

    2025

  140. [148]

    OpenEMMA: Open-Source Multimodal Model for End-to-End Au- tonomous Driving,

    S. Xing, C. Qian, Y . Wang, H. Hua, K. Tian, Y . Zhou, and Z. Tu, “OpenEMMA: Open-Source Multimodal Model for End-to-End Au- tonomous Driving,” Feb. 2025

    2025

  141. [149]

    LightEMMA: Lightweight End-to-End Multimodal Model for Autonomous Driving,

    Z. Qiao, H. Li, Z. Cao, and H. X. Liu, “LightEMMA: Lightweight End-to-End Multimodal Model for Autonomous Driving,” May 2025

    2025

  142. [150]

    SOLVE: Syn- ergy of Language-Vision and End-to-End Networks for Autonomous Driving,

    X. Chen, L. Huang, T. Ma, R. Fang, S. Shi, and H. Li, “SOLVE: Syn- ergy of Language-Vision and End-to-End Networks for Autonomous Driving,” May 2025

    2025

  143. [151]

    Sensor Fusion for Predicting Vehicles’ Path for Collision Avoidance Systems,

    A. Polychronopoulos, M. Tsogas, A. Amditis, and L. Andreone, “Sensor Fusion for Predicting Vehicles’ Path for Collision Avoidance Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 549–562, Sep. 2007

    2007

  144. [152]

    A Constant Speed Changing Rate and Constant Turn Rate Model for Maneuvering Target Tracking,

    G. Zhai, H. Meng, and X. Wang, “A Constant Speed Changing Rate and Constant Turn Rate Model for Maneuvering Target Tracking,”Sensors, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 5239–5253, Mar. 2014

    2014

  145. [153]

    What the Constant Velocity Model Can Teach Us About Pedestrian Motion Prediction,

    C. Sch ¨oller, V . Aravantinos, F. Lay, and A. Knoll, “What the Constant Velocity Model Can Teach Us About Pedestrian Motion Prediction,” Jan. 2020

    2020

  146. [154]

    Comparative evaluation of Kalman filters and motion models in vehicular state estimation and path prediction,

    L. Tao, Y . Watanabe, S. Yamada, and H. Takada, “Comparative evaluation of Kalman filters and motion models in vehicular state estimation and path prediction,”Journal of Navigation, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 1142–1160, Sep. 2021

    2021

  147. [155]

    Social LSTM: Human Trajectory Prediction in Crowded Spaces,

    A. Alahi, K. Goel, V . Ramanathan, A. Robicquet, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Savarese, “Social LSTM: Human Trajectory Prediction in Crowded Spaces,” in2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Las Vegas, NV , USA: IEEE, Jun. 2016

    2016

  148. [156]

    Social GAN: Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks,

    A. Gupta, J. Johnson, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and A. Alahi, “Social GAN: Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks,” in2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Salt Lake City, UT: IEEE, Jun. 2018, pp. 2255– 2264

    2018

  149. [157]

    STGAT: Modeling Spatial-Temporal Interactions for Human Trajectory Prediction,

    Y . Huang, H. Bi, Z. Li, T. Mao, and Z. Wang, “STGAT: Modeling Spatial-Temporal Interactions for Human Trajectory Prediction,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Seoul, Korea (South): IEEE, Oct. 2019, pp. 6271–6280

    2019

  150. [158]

    Social- STGCNN: A Social Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolutional Neural Net- work for Human Trajectory Prediction,

    A. Mohamed, K. Qian, M. Elhoseiny, and C. Claudel, “Social- STGCNN: A Social Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolutional Neural Net- work for Human Trajectory Prediction,” in2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Seattle, W A, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2020,...

    2020

  151. [159]

    It Is Not the Journey but the Destination: Endpoint Conditioned Trajectory Prediction,

    K. Mangalam, H. Girase, S. Agarwal, K.-H. Lee, E. Adeli, J. Malik, and A. Gaidon, “It Is Not the Journey but the Destination: Endpoint Conditioned Trajectory Prediction,” Jul. 2020

    2020

  152. [160]

    AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting,

    Y . Yuan, X. Weng, Y . Ou, and K. Kitani, “AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting,” Oct. 2021

    2021

  153. [161]

    Trajec- tron++: Dynamically-Feasible Trajectory Forecasting With Heteroge- neous Data,

    T. Salzmann, B. Ivanovic, P. Chakravarty, and M. Pavone, “Trajec- tron++: Dynamically-Feasible Trajectory Forecasting With Heteroge- neous Data,” Jan. 2021

    2021

  154. [162]

    Remember Inten- tions: Retrospective-Memory-based Trajectory Prediction,

    C. Xu, W. Mao, W. Zhang, and S. Chen, “Remember Inten- tions: Retrospective-Memory-based Trajectory Prediction,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). New Orleans, LA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp. 6478–6487

    2022

  155. [163]

    Stochastic Trajectory Prediction via Motion Indeterminacy Diffusion,

    T. Gu, G. Chen, J. Li, C. Lin, Y . Rao, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Stochastic Trajectory Prediction via Motion Indeterminacy Diffusion,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). New Orleans, LA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp. 17 092–17 101

    2022

  156. [164]

    Learning Pedestrian Group Representations for Multi-modal Trajectory Prediction,

    I. Bae, J.-H. Park, and H.-G. Jeon, “Learning Pedestrian Group Representations for Multi-modal Trajectory Prediction,” Jul. 2022

    2022

  157. [165]

    Non-Probability Sampling Network for Stochastic Human Tra- jectory Prediction,

    ——, “Non-Probability Sampling Network for Stochastic Human Tra- jectory Prediction,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). New Orleans, LA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp. 6467–6477

    2022

  158. [166]

    Xu, J.-B

    P. Xu, J.-B. Hayet, and I. Karamouzas,SocialVAE: Human Trajectory Prediction Using Timewise Latents. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, p. 511–528. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-19772-7 30

    2022

  159. [167]

    EigenTrajectory: Low-Rank Descriptors for Multi-Modal Trajectory Forecasting,

    I. Bae, J. Oh, and H.-G. Jeon, “EigenTrajectory: Low-Rank Descriptors for Multi-Modal Trajectory Forecasting,” in2023 IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Paris, France: IEEE, Oct. 2023

    2023

  160. [168]

    Leapfrog Diffu- sion Model for Stochastic Trajectory Prediction,

    W. Mao, C. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Leapfrog Diffu- sion Model for Stochastic Trajectory Prediction,” in2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Vancouver, BC, Canada: IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 5517–5526

    2023

  161. [169]

    MoFlow: One-Step Flow Matching for Human Trajectory Forecasting via Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation based Distillation,

    Y . Fu, Q. Yan, L. Wang, K. Li, and R. Liao, “MoFlow: One-Step Flow Matching for Human Trajectory Forecasting via Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation based Distillation,” Mar. 2025

    2025

  162. [170]

    V2x-unipool: Unifying multimodal perception and knowledge reasoning for autonomous driving,

    X. Luo, F. Yang, F. Ding, X. Gao, S. Xing, Y . Zhou, Z. Tu, and C. Liu, “V2x-unipool: Unifying multimodal perception and knowledge reasoning for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02580, 2025

    2025

  163. [171]

    Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey,

    I. O. Gallegos, R. A. Rossi, J. Barrow, M. M. Tanjim, S. Kim, F. Der- noncourt, T. Yu, R. Zhang, and N. K. Ahmed, “Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey,”Computational Linguistics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1097–1179, 2024

    2024

  164. [172]

    Large language models and their applications in roadway safety and mobility enhancement: A comprehensive review,

    M. M. Karim, Y . Shi, S. Zhang, B. Wang, M. Nasri, and Y . Wang, “Large language models and their applications in roadway safety and mobility enhancement: A comprehensive review,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06301, 2025

    2025

  165. [173]

    Specee: Accelerating large language model inference with specula- tive early exiting,

    J. Xu, J. Pan, Y . Zhou, S. Chen, J. Li, Y . Lian, J. Wu, and G. Dai, “Specee: Accelerating large language model inference with specula- tive early exiting,” inProceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2025, pp. 467–481

    2025

  166. [2025]

    Available: https://www.liauto.com/tech/haloos#li

    [Online]. Available: https://www.liauto.com/tech/haloos#li

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.