LLM-Empowered Multimodal Fusion Framework for Autonomous Driving: Semantic Enhancement and Channel-Adaptive Design

Hao Chen; Nan Ma; Shuguang Cui; Wen Wang; Xiaodong Xu; Yaping Sun; Yejun He; Zhiyong Chen

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 22 references

LLM-Empowered Multimodal Fusion Framework for Autonomous Driving: Semantic Enhancement and Channel-Adaptive Design

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-03 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read An LLM uses channel quality prompts to adaptively fuse vision and radar, cutting localization error by 40% versus vision-only on nuScenes.

desk verdict LM-SCIP adds a channel-prompt module to LLM-based radar-vision fusion but the 40% RMSE claim does not isolate whether the LLM actually uses the prompts for SNR-dependent arbitration. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.01772 v1 pith:GWQLE3Y3 submitted 2026-07-02 cs.CV eess.SP

Wen Wang , Yaping Sun , Yejun He , Hao Chen , Zhiyong Chen , Xiaodong Xu , Nan Ma , Shuguang Cui This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVeess.SP

keywords multimodalfusionautonomousdrivinglargelanguagemodelvision-radarchanneladaptationsemanticreasoninglocalization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper re-frames vision-radar fusion for autonomous driving as a channel-aware semantic reasoning problem solved by placing an LLM at the center of the fusion process. It introduces the LM-SCIP framework in which a Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module converts link quality indicators into Channel Prompts that let the LLM decide when to fall back to local vision or incorporate external radar data. A sympathetic reader would care because real-world sensor inputs vary sharply with occlusion, weather, and noise, so a static fusion rule cannot maintain accuracy across conditions. The reported outcome is that the model achieves both a vision-dominant fallback at low SNR and improved joint performance at high SNR.

What carries the argument

The Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module (CASM), which translates link quality indicators into Channel Prompts that dynamically gate external radar features for the LLM.

What would settle it

Re-running the nuScenes experiments with radar input toggled at varying SNR levels and finding that localization RMSE does not drop by 40% or that the vision-dominant versus synergistic pattern fails to appear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LM-SCIP couples a hierarchical radar-vision encoder with a Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module that maps link indicators into Channel Prompts, then routes the conditioned features through a LoRA-tuned LLM and heterogeneous Mixture-of-Experts for arbitration, followed by a decoupled multi-task decoder that produces localization, trajectory forecasts, and image reconstruction; on nuScenes this yields a 40.0% reduction in localization RMSE relative to a vision-only baseline under controlled radar toggle.

Load-bearing premise

The Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module accurately translates link quality indicators into Channel Prompts that allow the LLM to correctly arbitrate between visual and radar features without introducing new errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The model maintains accuracy by defaulting to vision when radar quality is poor.
The model improves accuracy by incorporating radar when channel conditions are good.
A single model produces localization, trajectory forecasting, and image reconstruction outputs.
Performance is demonstrated on both nuScenes and VIRAT datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

The prompt-based arbitration mechanism could be extended to other sensor pairs such as vision and LiDAR by defining modality-specific channel indicators.
Because the LLM sits at the reasoning core, its intermediate outputs might be inspected to understand why a particular fusion decision was made.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper introduces LM-SCIP, an LLM-centric setup for vision-radar fusion in driving that includes a Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module to turn link-quality signals into prompts. These prompts feed a LoRA-tuned LLM plus heterogeneous MoE so the system can fall back to vision when radar quality drops and combine both when quality is good.

What is actually new is the specific CASM-to-prompt pipeline and the H-MoE conditioned on those prompts; prior LLM fusion work exists, but this framing around dynamic channel quality is a reasonable incremental step for a safety-critical setting.

The results on nuScenes report a 40% localization RMSE drop versus vision-only under a radar toggle, with additional numbers on VIRAT. That shows the overall system can improve on a simple baseline when radar is added under controlled conditions.

The soft spot is the missing link between the claimed mechanism and the reported number. The abstract gives an aggregate gain under binary radar on/off but no per-SNR breakdowns, no ablation that removes the channel prompt, and no check on whether the LLM attends to or conditions on the prompt. Without those controls it is unclear whether the improvement comes from the prompting logic or simply from the MoE and extra radar features. The abstract also omits error bars, detailed baselines, and ablation tables, so the empirical support remains thin from the given text.

This is the sort of applied multimodal paper that people working on autonomous-driving perception stacks might want to look at for the architecture ideas. It is coherent on its own terms and engages the right practical problem, even if the central causal claim needs stronger tests.

I would send it to peer review so the authors can supply the missing ablations and regime-specific results.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LM-SCIP, an LLM-centric framework for vision-radar fusion in autonomous driving. It introduces a Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module (CASM) that converts link quality indicators into Channel Prompts, which condition a LoRA-tuned LLM (with heterogeneous Mixture-of-Experts) to perform semantic arbitration between local visual features and external radar features. This is claimed to enable vision-dominant fallback at low SNR and synergistic fusion at high SNR. A decoupled decoder handles localization, trajectory forecasting, and reconstruction. On nuScenes, under controlled radar toggle, LM-SCIP reports 40% lower localization RMSE versus vision-only; on VIRAT it reports 0.214 m RMSE and 0.179 m minFDE (k=1).

Significance. If the core mechanism is validated, the work could demonstrate a practical route for LLMs to perform channel-aware multimodal reasoning in perception pipelines, moving beyond static fusion. The parameter-efficient design and explicit handling of varying input quality are potentially useful strengths for real-world deployment. However, without evidence isolating the contribution of the Channel Prompts and LLM arbitration, the significance remains provisional.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the LLM, conditioned on CASM-generated Channel Prompts, performs SNR-dependent arbitration (vision-dominant at low SNR, synergistic at high SNR) is not supported by the reported evidence. The 40% RMSE reduction is presented only as an aggregate result under binary radar toggle, with no per-SNR regime breakdowns, no ablation that removes the Channel Prompt, and no analysis (e.g., attention maps) showing that the LLM conditions on the prompt rather than treating radar features as an unconditional additive stream.
[Experiments] Experiments (nuScenes and VIRAT results): no baseline comparisons beyond vision-only, no error bars, no ablation studies, and no quantitative isolation of CASM or H-MoE contributions are described. This makes it impossible to determine whether the reported gains arise from the claimed channel-aware LLM reasoning or from simpler heterogeneous fusion.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to a 'controlled toggle of radar input' but provides no detail on how SNR is varied, measured, or simulated.
Notation for the invented components (CASM, Channel Prompt, H-MoE) is introduced without a dedicated diagram or pseudocode showing data flow from link indicators to LLM input.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The comments highlight the need for stronger empirical isolation of the channel-aware mechanisms, and we will revise the manuscript to address these points directly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the LLM, conditioned on CASM-generated Channel Prompts, performs SNR-dependent arbitration (vision-dominant at low SNR, synergistic at high SNR) is not supported by the reported evidence. The 40% RMSE reduction is presented only as an aggregate result under binary radar toggle, with no per-SNR regime breakdowns, no ablation that removes the Channel Prompt, and no analysis (e.g., attention maps) showing that the LLM conditions on the prompt rather than treating radar features as an unconditional additive stream.

Authors: We agree that the current aggregate results under binary toggle do not sufficiently demonstrate the SNR-dependent arbitration. In the revision we will add per-SNR regime breakdowns of localization RMSE, an ablation that removes the Channel Prompt, and attention-map analysis showing conditioning on the prompt. These additions will be included in the updated experiments section. revision: yes
Referee: [Experiments] Experiments (nuScenes and VIRAT results): no baseline comparisons beyond vision-only, no error bars, no ablation studies, and no quantitative isolation of CASM or H-MoE contributions are described. This makes it impossible to determine whether the reported gains arise from the claimed channel-aware LLM reasoning or from simpler heterogeneous fusion.

Authors: We acknowledge the absence of these elements in the current version. The revised manuscript will incorporate additional fusion baselines, error bars from repeated runs, and quantitative ablations isolating CASM and H-MoE to clarify the source of the gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical framework evaluated on external datasets

full rationale

The paper presents an engineering design (LM-SCIP with CASM, LLM, H-MoE) whose central claims are performance numbers obtained by direct comparison against baselines on held-out nuScenes and VIRAT data. No equations, derivations, fitted-parameter predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text; the 40% RMSE figure is an aggregate experimental outcome rather than a quantity forced by construction from the framework's own definitions or inputs.

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

The framework rests on several newly introduced modules whose behavior is asserted rather than derived from prior results; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, but the effectiveness of the prompt mapping is unproven outside this work.

invented entities (3)

Channel Prompt
purpose: Dynamically gate external radar features based on link quality
Introduced as the output of CASM to condition the LLM
Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module (CASM)
purpose: Map link indicators into Channel Prompt
Core new component of the proposed framework
heterogeneous Mixture-of-Experts (H-MoE)
purpose: Arbitrate between visual cues and channel-conditioned radar context inside the LLM
Part of the LLM integration described in the abstract

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-Empowered Multimodal Fusion Framework for Autonomous Driving: Semantic Enhancement and Channel-Adaptive Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWQLE3Y3

@misc{pith2026260701772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-Empowered Multimodal Fusion Framework for Autonomous Driving: Semantic Enhancement and Channel-Adaptive Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWQLE3Y3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01772}
}

read the original abstract

Vision-radar fusion is central to robust autonomous driving, combining dense visual semantics with precise range and velocity measurements from radar. However, real-world fusion quality is fundamentally challenged by dynamically varying input quality, stemming from occlusion, adverse weather, and channel noise. To address this, we re-frame the problem from static data fusion to channel-aware semantic reasoning and propose a Large Language Model-centric Semantic-layer Channel-aware Integrated Perception (LM-SCIP) framework. It places a Large Language Model (LLM) as a central reasoning core to fuse a local visual stream with a quality-varying external radar stream used to cover perception-blind spots. Concretely, LM-SCIP couples a hierarchical radar-vision encoder with a Channel-Adaptive Semantic Module (CASM) that maps link indicators into a "Channel Prompt" to dynamically gate external radar features. A parameter-efficient, LoRA-tuned LLM, in conjunction with a heterogeneous Mixture-of-Experts (H-MoE), then arbitrates between local visual cues and the channel-conditioned radar context. Finally, a decoupled multi-task decoder outputs localization, trajectory forecasting, and image reconstruction. Experiments on nuScenes and VIRAT validate our approach. On nuScenes, under a controlled toggle of radar input, LM-SCIP reduces localization RMSE by 40.0% versus a vision-only baseline. On VIRAT, the model attains a 0.214m localization RMSE and 0.179m minFDE (k=1). These results reveal that the proposed LM-SCIP enables a robust vision-dominant fallback at low SNR and synergistic fusion at high SNR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01772 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** System overview of LM-SCIP. link indicators Jn = {SNR, mod idxn} , which are fed to CASM as side information. LFM–SIMO echo synthesis. Following the standard LFM– SIMO model [17], the complex baseband echo received at the k-th antenna can be written as: xn,k(t) = λ(dn) ak(θn) s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Network design of the proposed LM-SCIP framework. TABLE I ABLATION ACROSS SCENARIOS FOR LM-SCIP AND ITS VARIANTS Scenario LM-SCIP Vision-only w/o CASM w/o H-MoE RMSE↓ ADE↓ PSNR↑ RMSE↓ ADE↓ PSNR↑ RMSE↓ ADE↓ PSNR↑ RMSE↓ ADE↓ PSNR↑ Ideal 0.2140 (↓42.3%) 0.1704 22.1755 0.3708 0.2329 21.4898 0.2345 0.1911 22.0684 13.0825 1.2398 16.0962 Low SNR 0.2435 0.1957 22.1509 0.3709 0.2332 21.4866 0.2741 0.2240 22.0833 77.6543 1.24… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: illustrates the performance as a function of SNR in the range from −5 to 25 dB and exhibits two distinct operating regimes: (i) a stable vision-dominant mode at low SNR, where CASM down-weights unreliable radar features; and (ii) a synergistic fusion mode at higher SNR…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

BEVFormer: Learning Bird’s-Eye-View Representation From LiDAR– Camera via Spatiotemporal Transformers,

Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Q. Yu, and J. Dai, “BEVFormer: Learning Bird’s-Eye-View Representation From LiDAR– Camera via Spatiotemporal Transformers,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 2020–2036, 2025

work page 2020
[2]

Radar–Camera Fusion for Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Review,

S. Yao, R. Guan, X. Huang, Z. Li, X. Sha, Y . Yue, E. G. Lim, H. Seo, K. L. Man, X. Zhuet al., “Radar–Camera Fusion for Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Review,”IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2094–2128, 2023

work page
[3]

CRAFT: Camera–Radar 3D Object Detection with Spatio–Contextual Fusion Transformer,

Y . Kim, S. Kim, J. W. Choi, and D. Kum, “CRAFT: Camera–Radar 3D Object Detection with Spatio–Contextual Fusion Transformer,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., vol. 37, no. 1, 2023, pp. 1160–1168

work page 2023
[4]

CRN: Camera Radar Net for Accurate, Robust, Efficient 3D Perception,

Y . Kim, J. Shin, S. Kim, I.-J. Lee, J. W. Choi, and D. Kum, “CRN: Camera Radar Net for Accurate, Robust, Efficient 3D Perception,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), 2023, pp. 17 569– 17 580

work page 2023
[5]

MVFusion: Multi- View 3D Object Detection with Semantic-Aligned Radar and Camera Fusion,

Z. Wu, G. Chen, Y . Gan, L. Wang, and J. Pu, “MVFusion: Multi- View 3D Object Detection with Semantic-Aligned Radar and Camera Fusion,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2023, pp. 2766–2773

work page 2023
[6]

Learning for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Perception under Lossy Communica- tion,

J. Li, R. Xu, X. Liu, J. Ma, Z. Chi, J. Ma, and H. Yu, “Learning for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Perception under Lossy Communica- tion,”IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2650–2660, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

GPT-Driver: Learning to Drive with GPT,

J. Mao, Y . Qian, H. Zhao, and Y . Wang, “GPT-Driver: Learning to Drive with GPT,” inProc. NeurIPS F ound. Models for Decis. Making Workshop, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

DriveLLM: Charting the Path Toward Full Au- tonomous Driving with Large Language Models,

Y . Cui, S. Huang, J. Zhong, Z. Liu, Y . Wang, C. Sun, B. Li, X. Wang, and A. Khajepour, “DriveLLM: Charting the Path Toward Full Au- tonomous Driving with Large Language Models,”IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1450–1464, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 22 references

[9]

A Unified Perception–Language–Action Framework for Adaptive Autonomous Driving,

Y . Zhang, E. L. Haß, K.-Y . Chao, N. Petrovic, Y . Song, C. Wu, and A. Knoll, “A Unified Perception–Language–Action Framework for Adaptive Autonomous Driving,”arXiv, 2025, arXiv:2507.23540

2025
[10]

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,” inProc. Conf. Robot Learn. (CoRL), 2024

2024
[11]

Planning-Oriented Autonomous Driving,

Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wanget al., “Planning-Oriented Autonomous Driving,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

2023
[12]

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,” inProc. NeurIPS Workshop on Open-World Agents, 2024

2024
[13]

SIMAC: A Semantic-Driven Integrated Multimodal Sensing and Communication Framework,

Y . Peng, L. Xiang, K. Yang, F. Jiang, K. Wang, and D. O. Wu, “SIMAC: A Semantic-Driven Integrated Multimodal Sensing and Communication Framework,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2025

2025
[14]

nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving,

H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2020, pp. 11 621–11 631

2020
[15]

A Large-Scale Benchmark Dataset for Event Recognition in Surveillance Video,

S. Oh, A. Hoogs, A. Perera, N. Cuntoor, C.-C. Chen, J. T. Lee, S. Mukherjee, J. K. Aggarwal, H. Lee, L. Daviset al., “A Large-Scale Benchmark Dataset for Event Recognition in Surveillance Video,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2011, pp. 3153–3160

2011
[16]

A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications,

M. H. C. Garcia, A. Molina-Galan, M. Boban, J. Gozalvez, B. Coll- Perales, T. S ¸ahin, and A. Kousaridas, “A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1972–2026, 2021

1972
[17]

Automotive Radars: A Review of Signal Processing Techniques,

S. M. Patole, M. Torlak, D. Wang, and M. Ali, “Automotive Radars: A Review of Signal Processing Techniques,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 22–35, 2017

2017
[18]

WDMoE: Wireless Distributed Mixture of Experts for Large Language Models,

N. Xue, Y . Sun, Z. Chen, M. Tao, X. Xu, L. Qian, S. Cui, W. Zhang, and P. Zhang, “WDMoE: Wireless Distributed Mixture of Experts for Large Language Models,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 2025

2025
[19]

The Garden of Forking Paths: Towards Multi-Future Trajectory Prediction,

J. Liang, L. Jiang, K. Murphy, T. Yu, and A. Hauptmann, “The Garden of Forking Paths: Towards Multi-Future Trajectory Prediction,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2020, pp. 10 508–10 518

2020
[20]

Graph-Based Spatial Transformer with Memory Replay for Multi-Future Pedestrian Trajectory Predic- tion,

L. Li, M. Pagnucco, and Y . Song, “Graph-Based Spatial Transformer with Memory Replay for Multi-Future Pedestrian Trajectory Predic- tion,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2022, pp. 2231–2241

2022
[21]

SimAug: Learning Robust Representations from Simulation for Trajectory Prediction,

J. Liang, L. Jiang, and A. Hauptmann, “SimAug: Learning Robust Representations from Simulation for Trajectory Prediction,” inProc. Eur . Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV), 2020, pp. 275–292

2020
[22]

CenterFusion: Center-Based Radar and Camera Fusion for 3D Object Detection,

R. Nabati and H. Qi, “CenterFusion: Center-Based Radar and Camera Fusion for 3D Object Detection,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Winter Conf. Appl. Comput. Vis. (WACV), 2021, pp. 1527–1536

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed July 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

BEVFormer: Learning Bird’s-Eye-View Representation From LiDAR– Camera via Spatiotemporal Transformers,

Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Q. Yu, and J. Dai, “BEVFormer: Learning Bird’s-Eye-View Representation From LiDAR– Camera via Spatiotemporal Transformers,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 2020–2036, 2025

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Radar–Camera Fusion for Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Review,

S. Yao, R. Guan, X. Huang, Z. Li, X. Sha, Y . Yue, E. G. Lim, H. Seo, K. L. Man, X. Zhuet al., “Radar–Camera Fusion for Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation in Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Review,”IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2094–2128, 2023

work page

[3] [3]

CRAFT: Camera–Radar 3D Object Detection with Spatio–Contextual Fusion Transformer,

Y . Kim, S. Kim, J. W. Choi, and D. Kum, “CRAFT: Camera–Radar 3D Object Detection with Spatio–Contextual Fusion Transformer,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., vol. 37, no. 1, 2023, pp. 1160–1168

work page 2023

[4] [4]

CRN: Camera Radar Net for Accurate, Robust, Efficient 3D Perception,

Y . Kim, J. Shin, S. Kim, I.-J. Lee, J. W. Choi, and D. Kum, “CRN: Camera Radar Net for Accurate, Robust, Efficient 3D Perception,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), 2023, pp. 17 569– 17 580

work page 2023

[5] [5]

MVFusion: Multi- View 3D Object Detection with Semantic-Aligned Radar and Camera Fusion,

Z. Wu, G. Chen, Y . Gan, L. Wang, and J. Pu, “MVFusion: Multi- View 3D Object Detection with Semantic-Aligned Radar and Camera Fusion,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2023, pp. 2766–2773

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Learning for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Perception under Lossy Communica- tion,

J. Li, R. Xu, X. Liu, J. Ma, Z. Chi, J. Ma, and H. Yu, “Learning for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Perception under Lossy Communica- tion,”IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2650–2660, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

GPT-Driver: Learning to Drive with GPT,

J. Mao, Y . Qian, H. Zhao, and Y . Wang, “GPT-Driver: Learning to Drive with GPT,” inProc. NeurIPS F ound. Models for Decis. Making Workshop, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

DriveLLM: Charting the Path Toward Full Au- tonomous Driving with Large Language Models,

Y . Cui, S. Huang, J. Zhong, Z. Liu, Y . Wang, C. Sun, B. Li, X. Wang, and A. Khajepour, “DriveLLM: Charting the Path Toward Full Au- tonomous Driving with Large Language Models,”IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1450–1464, 2023

work page 2023