Authors: Katharina Winter, Abhishek Vivekanandan, Rupert Polley, Yinzhe Shen, Christian Schlauch, Mohamed-Khalil Bouzidi, Bojan Derajic, Natalie Grabowsky, Annajoyce Mariani, Dennis Rochau, Giovanni Lucente, Harsh Yadav, Firas Mualla, Adam Molin, Sebastian Bernhard, Christian Wirth, Ömer Şahin Taş, Nadja Klein, Fabian B. Flohr, Hanno Gottschalk
Organizations: Munich University of Applied Sciences, Intelligent Vehicles Lab (IVL), 80335 Munich, Germany · FZI Research Center for Information Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany · Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH, Guericke Str.7, 60488 Frankfurt a. M., Germany · Technical University of Berlin, Institute of Mathematics, Straße des 17.Juni 136, 10587 Berlin, Germany · German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Transportation Systems, Lilienthalplatz 7, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany · Aptiv Services Deutschland GmbH, Am Technologiepark 1, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany · AI Lab, ZF Friedrichshafen AG, Uni-Campus D 5 1, 66123 Saarbruecken, Germany · DENSO AUTOMOTIVE Deutschland GmbH, Freisinger Str. 21, 85386 Eching, Germany · Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Scientific Computing Center, Zirkel 2, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Generative AI (GenAI) is rapidly advancing the field of Autonomous Driving (AD), extending beyond traditional applications in text, image, and video generation. We explore how generative models can enhance automotive tasks, such as static map creation, dynamic scenario generation, trajectory forecasting, and vehicle motion planning. By examining multiple generative approaches ranging from Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) to Generative Transformers (GTs) and Diffusion Models (DMs), we highlight and compare their capabilities and limitations for AD-specific applications. Additionally, we discuss hybrid methods integrating conventional techniques with generative approaches, and emphasize their improved adaptability and robustness. We also identify relevant datasets and outline open research questions to guide future developments in GenAI. Finally, we discuss five core challenges: safety, interpretability, realtime capabilities, training and benchmarking. We also present recommendations for image generation, dynamic scenario generation, and planning.
Figures & tables
Survey
Published
Application
Features
[ 57 ]
02/2022
ScenarioGen
Methods and tools for safety-critical scenario gen.
[ 268 ]
12/2023
ScenarioGen
Percept., pred., sim. and decision-making for traffic gen.
[ 245 ]
12/2024
ScenarioGen
Non-adaptive and adaptive scenario gen. for testing.
[ 74 ] *
06/2025
ScenarioGen
LLM -, DM -, world model- based Foundation models for scenario gen.
[ 202 ] *
08/2025
ScenarioGen
Distribution GenAI models used in ADS testing.
[ 52 ] *
09/2025
Prediction
LLM-based Foundation models for trajectory prediction.
TABLE I : Overview of existing GenAI surveys. * indicates surveys published after submission. AD Stack includes SceneGen, ScenarioGen, Prediction, Planning, and related tasks.
Model class
Distributional
Inference
Training
Time
Accuracy
Speed
Stability
Series
Energy Based
–
×
×
×
Transport impl.
–
✓
×
–
Transport expl.
✓
–
✓
–
Diffusion
✓
×
✓
–
Autoregressive
✓
–
✓
✓
TABLE II : Properties of generative learning methods. The symbol “–” is used when the model class shows mixed performance w.r.t. the criterion. The markings show tendencies, but exceptions occur.
Fig. 2 : Taxonomy of generative learning approaches. Categories and subcategories are shown in green, generative modeling approaches in orange. Hybrid forms may exist but are not listed. Sections IV to IX discuss applications of these methods to the AD stack.
Fig. 3 : Comparison of prediction types in a traffic intersection scenario. Blue and orange colors represent different prediction modes. The subfigure (a) shows marginal prediction for the red vehicle, (b) illustrates the conditional prediction of the red vehicle dependent on the ego vehicle (shown in blue), and (c) shows joint prediction, where blue and orange colors represent an entire scene independently.
Model
Year
Approach
Category
Benchmarks
Features
Neural Turtle Graphics [ 45 ]
2019
Autoregressive (encoder-decoder RNN )
S
RoadNet/SpaceNet
Generates plausible road network graphs
HDMapGen [ 160 ]
2021
Autoregressive (graph)
S
Argoverse
Hierarchical graph model for lane-level HD maps
SLEDGE [ 43 ]
2024
Diffusion (latent)
S
nuPlan
Generates lane graph and agents; integrated traffic simulation
DriveSceneGen [ 208 ]
2024
Diffusion (image) + graph
S
Waymo
Two-stage: rasterized scene generation and agent simulation
PolyDiffuse [ 36 ]
2023
Diffusion (set)
S
nuScenes/Argoverse2
Guided set diffusion for HD map reconstruction from sensor data
TrafficGen [ 68 ]
2023
Autoregressive (encoder-decoder)
D
Waymo
Autoregressive vehicle and trajectory generation
TABLE III : Overview of scene and scenario generation methods, with focus on static maps (S), dynamic scenarios (D) and world models (W)
Fig. 4 : Demonstration of scenario generation starting from an initial position and a tag. Images were taken from [ 56 ] .
Fig. 5 : Demonstration of text-prompt to scenario generation. Image was taken from [ 213 ] . Prompt: The scene is very dense. There are only vehicles on the left side of the center car. Most cars are moving at high speeds. The ego-vehicle turns right.
Category
Metric
Description
Distribution
Topology fidelity (MMD) [ 160 ]
Graph degree, Laplacian stats
Geometry fidelity (Fréchet) [ 160 ]
Lane length and orientation stats
Urban planning (Fréchet) [ 45 ] [ 160 ]
Density, connectivity, reach, convenience
Map diversity (Chamfer) [ 45 ] [ 160 ]
Novelty and internal diversity of graphs
Perceptual FID [ 91 ] [ 45 ]
Inception features on rendered maps
Reconstruction
GEO metric [ 43 ]
Point match precision, recall, F1
TABLE IV : Metrics for static scene generation
Figure 9
Model
Year
Approach
Interaction Type
Benchmarks
Features
MFP [ 216 ]
2019
Autoregressive
joint
NGSIM, Argoverse
parallel per-agent RNNs with shared latent variable attention
LB-EBM [ 178 ]
2021
EBM
joint
Stanford Drone Dataset, ETH-UCY
inverse reinforcement learning with latent beliefs
SEEM [ 236 ]
2022
EBM
joint
ETH-UCY
generator and energy network architecture
EPD [ 143 ]
2022
EBM & Diffusion
joint
ETH-UCY
hybrid energy and diffusion prediction model
LatentFormer [ 1 ]
2022
Autoregressive
joint
nuScenes
transformer encoder-decoder conditioned on learned latent intention variables
MotionLM [ 194 ]
2023
Autoregressive
joint
Waymo, Argoverse 2
transformer encoder-decoder predicting over discrete heuristic motion token vocabulary
TABLE V : Overview of Generative Trajectory Forecasting Methods
Category
Metric
Description
Displacement
minADE@ K [ 104 ]
Average Displacement
minFDE@ K [ 104 ]
Displacement of final step
MissRate@ δ [ 104 ]
Existence of prediction within bound
Probabilistic
Negative Log Likelihood (NLL) [ 104 ]
Probability of ground truth
Expected Calibration Error [ 177 ]
Reliability of predicted confidences
Multi-Modality
Pairwise-Spread [ 198 ]
Spread of predicted modes
TABLE VI : Trajectory Forecasting Metrics
Method
Year
Approach
Benchmarks
Features
Performer-MPC [ 260 ]
2022
Transformer + MPC
Custom Sim/Real World
Learns cost function from vision embeddings; robust to constraint violations.
GAN-MPC [ 24 ]
2023
GAN + MPC
DeepMind Control suite
Minimizes the Jensen-Shannon divergence between the state-trajectory distributions.
LanguageMPC [ 196 ]
2023
LLM + MPC
SUMO + IDSim
LLM generates MPC parameters and cost weights from text prompts.
Transformer-MPC [ 148 ]
2024
Transformer + MPC
Real World
Replaces BADGR’s LSTM with Transformer; improves uncertainty-aware control.
Diffusion SDE MPC [ 58 ]
2025
Diffusion + MPC
Real World
Physics-informed conditional diffusion for stochastic vehicle dynamics.
D-MPC [ 289 ]
2024
Diffusion + MPC
D4RL
Generates initial trajectory; MPC refines under dynamic constraints.
TABLE VII : Overview of Hybrid Motion Planning Methods
Category
Metric
Description
Safety
Collision rate [ 119 ]
Fraction of scenarios with any collision.
Time-to-collision (TTC) [ 119 ]
Minimum predicted time to impact.
Drivable area compliance [ 119 ]
Fraction of trajectory within drivable space.
Safe following distance (SFD) [ 2 ]
Safe gap behind vehicles to react and stop safely.
Compliance
Lane deviation [ 2 ]
Lateral deviation from the assigned lane center.
Speed-limit compliance [ 119 ]
Fraction of time that ego remains within speed limits.
TABLE VIII : Overview of Motion Planning Metrics
Model
Year
Approach
OL / CL
Benchmarks
Features
DiffusionDrive [ 136 ]
2025
Diffusion
OL
nuScenes, NAVSIM
Diffusion with anchored Gaussian priors and transformer-based decoder for conditioning.
GenAD [ 287 ]
2024
Transport, Autoregressive
OL
nuScenes
Encodes scene features into a latent trajectory space, then predicts&plans future trajectories from it.
DriveGPT4 [ 267 ]
2024
Autoregressive
OL
BDD-X
Predicts vehicle control and driving reasoning.
OmniDrive [ 239 ]
2025
Autoregressive
OL
nuScenes
Leverages 2D VLM priors with 3D position encoding and counterfactual reasoning.
SimLingo [ 188 ]
2025
Autoregressive
CL
Carla, Bench2Drive
Maps split front-view image into path and waypoint representations.
DriveLM [ 221 ]
2024
Autoregressive
OL
nuScenes, SUP-AD
Performs scene-level reasoning for improved planning.
TABLE IX : Overview of End-to-End Methods
Argoverse [ 33 ]
INTER. [ 280 ]
LYFT [ 97 ]
Waymo [ 67 ]
NuScenes [ 25 ]
Yandex [ 155 ]
Argoverse2 [ 250 ]
# Scenarios
324 k
−
170 k
104 k
41 k
600 k
250 k
# Unique Tracks
11.7 M
40 k
53.4 M
7.64 M
−
17.4 M
13.9 M
Average Track Length
2.48 s
19.8 s
1.84 s
7.04 s
−
−
5.16 s
Total Time
320 h
16.5 h
1118 h
574 h
5.5 h
1667 h
763 h
Scenario Duration
5 s
−
25 s
9.1 s
8 s
10 s
11 s
Test Forecast Horizon
3 s
3 s
5 s
8 s
6 s
5 s
6 s
TABLE X : Overview of Motion Datasets [ 250 ]
Fig. 8 : Connection between taxonomy of generative learning approaches in Figure 2 and AD tasks Figure . The ribbon width is proportional to the frequency of generative learning approaches contributing to the tasks as noted in Tables III , V , VII and IX .
Autonomous driving develops vehicles that perceive road scenes, predict interactions, and plan and control safe movement with limited or no human input.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) constitutes a transformative technological wave that reconfigures industries through its unparalleled capabilities for content creation, reasoning, planning, and multimodal understanding. This revolutionary force offers the most promising path yet toward solving one of engineering's grandest challenges: achieving reliable, fully autonomous driving, particularly the pursuit of Level 5 autonomy. This survey delivers a comprehensive and critical synthesis of the emerging role of GenAI across the autonomous driving stack. We begin by distilling the principles and trade-offs of modern generative modeling, encompassing VAEs, GANs, Diffusion Models, and Large Language Models (LLMs). We then map their frontier applications in image, LiDAR, trajectory, occupancy, video generation as well as LLM-guided reasoning and decision making. We categorize practical applications, such as synthetic data workflows, end-to-end driving strategies, high-fidelity digital twin systems, smart transportation networks, and cross-domain transfer to embodied AI. We identify key obstacles and possibilities such as comprehensive generalization across rare cases, evaluation and safety checks, budget-limited implementation, regulatory compliance, ethical concerns, and environmental effects, while proposing research plans across theoretical assurances, trust metrics, transport integration, and socio-technical influence. By unifying these threads, the survey provides a forward-looking reference for researchers, engineers, and policymakers navigating the convergence of generative AI and advanced autonomous mobility. An actively maintained repository of cited works is available at https://github.com/taco-group/GenAI4AD.
Generating safety-critical scenarios is essential for validating and improving autonomous driving systems, yet it inherently requires maximizing adversariality to expose failures while preserving realism. Existing methods usually manage this trade-off with handcrafted heuristics, confining generation to known priors and overlooking underexplored patterns. While recent open-ended agentic evolution can push this limit, unconstrained general agents lack strict simulator grounding and tend to collapse the multi-objective tension into single-scalar maximization. Here we present EvoDrive, the first automated, LLM-based agentic evolution framework for multi-objective scenario generation. EvoDrive employs a simulator-grounded actor-critic architecture where a memory-driven actor iteratively proposes improvements to the generators and critics filter out implausible candidates, and a self-evolving world evaluator routes promising proposals to optimize simulation budgets. EvoDrive further maintains a Pareto archive of evaluated candidates to preserve diverse attack-realism trade-offs and guide future evolution via simulation feedback. Benchmark results on MetaDrive and CARLA show that EvoDrive not only significantly expands the Pareto frontier across various generators, but also produces valuable scenarios for policy training.
Tong Nie, Yuewen Mei, Yihong Tang +4
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Tongji University · McGill University +1
Recent research has investigated the use of large language models (LLMs) to generate traffic scenarios for autonomous driving. However, pretrained LLMs often fail to align with real-world traffic distributions. In this work, we present TrafficAlign, an automated framework that synthesizes traffic scenarios based on real-world driving videos, performs data validation, and aligns LLMs with the synthesized scenarios. The evaluation shows that traffic scenarios generated by TrafficAlign are highly effective, revealing up to 10.8% more collisions on average across three autonomous driving models than state-of-the-art methods. Furthermore, fine-tuning these driving models with TrafficAlign-generated scenarios significantly reduced collision rates by 36.1% compared with the original models. A qualitative study using traffic datasets from six geographically diverse regions shows that TrafficAlign-generated scenarios exhibit strong alignment with corresponding traffic distributions in these regions.