MindDriver: Introducing Progressive Multimodal Reasoning for Autonomous Driving
Organizations: Amap, Alibaba Group · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Xi’an Jiaotong University
Abstract
Vision-Language Models (VLM) exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, showing promise for end-to-end autonomous driving systems. Chain-of-Thought (CoT), as VLM's widely used reasoning strategy, is facing critical challenges. Existing textual CoT has a large gap between text semantic space and trajectory physical space. Although the recent approach utilizes future image to replace text as CoT process, it lacks clear planning-oriented objective guidance to generate images with accurate scene evolution. To address these, we innovatively propose MindDriver, a progressive multimodal reasoning framework that enables VLM to imitate human-like progressive thinking for autonomous driving. MindDriver presents semantic understanding, semantic-to-physical space imagination, and physical-space trajectory planning. To achieve aligned reasoning processes in MindDriver, we develop a feedback-guided automatic data annotation pipeline to generate aligned multimodal reasoning training data. Furthermore, we develop a progressive reinforcement fine-tuning method to optimize the alignment through progressive high- level reward-based learning. MindDriver demonstrates superior performance in both nuScences open-loop and Bench2Drive closed-loop evaluation. Codes are available at https://github.com/hotdogcheesewhite/MindDriver.
Figures & tables
| Method | ST-P3 metrics | UniAD metrics | LLM | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L2 (m) | Collision (%) | L2 (m) | Collision (%) | ||||||||||||||
| 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | ||
| With Ego status methods | |||||||||||||||||
| ST-P3* [ECCV22] [ 9 ] | 1.33 | 2.11 | 2.90 | 2.11 | 0.23 | 0.62 | 1.27 | 0.71 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| VAD* [ICCV23] [ 18 ] | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.60 | 0.37 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.33 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| UniAD* [CVPR23] [ 10 ] | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.20 | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.46 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.84 | 0.37 | - |
| Method | DriveGAN [ 19 ] | DriveDreamer [ 46 ] | Drive-WM [ 48 ] | GenAD [ 53 ] | GEM [ 6 ] | Doe-1 [ 66 ] | FSDrive [ 59 ] | MindDriver (ours) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [CVPR21] | [ECCV24] | [CVPR24] | [CVPR24] | [CVPR25] | [arxiv24] | [NeruIPS25] | ||
| Type | GAN | Diffusion | Diffusion | Diffusion | Diffusion | Autoregressive | Autoregressive | Autoregressive |
| Resolution | 256 256 | 128 192 | 192 384 | 256 448 | 576 1024 | 384 672 | 128 192 | 128 192 |
| FID | 73.4 | 52.6 | 15.8 | 15.4 | 10.5 | 15.9 | 10.1 | 9.4 |
| Method | DS | SR (%) | Effi | Comf |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD-MLP* [Arxiv23] [ 60 ] | 18.05 | 0.00 | 48.45 | 22.63 |
| UniAD-Base* [CVPR23] [ 11 ] | 45.81 | 16.36 | 129.21 | 43.58 |
| VAD* [ICCV25] [ 18 ] | 42.35 | 15.00 | 157.94 | 46.01 |
| TCP-traj* [NeurIPS22] [ 50 ] | 59.90 | 30.00 | 76.54 | 18.08 |
| DriveAdapter* [CVPR23] [ 15 ] | 64.22 | 33.08 | 70.22 | 16.01 |
| ReasonPlan* [CoRL25] [ 27 ] | 64.01 | 34.55 | 180.64 | 25.63 |
| Type | L2 (m) | Collision (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | |
| None | 0.38 | 0.93 | 1.67 | 0.99 | 0.13 | 0.35 | 1.18 | 0.56 |
| Text CoT | 0.37 | 0.90 | 1.61 | 0.96 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 1.05 | 0.46 |
| Image CoT | 0.39 | 0.98 | 1.81 | 1.06 | 0.15 | 0.37 | 1.13 | 0.55 |
| MultiModal(I2T) CoT | 0.38 | 0.95 | 1.70 | 1.01 | 0.07 | 0.25 | 1.08 | 0.47 |
| MultiModal(T2I) CoT | 0.36 | 0.89 | 1.60 | 0.95 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.97 | 0.41 |
| Type | L2 (m) | Collision (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | |
| Next 1.5s image | 0.39 | 0.95 | 1.68 | 1.01 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.97 | 0.45 |
| Next 1s image | 0.40 | 0.96 | 1.75 | 1.04 | 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.97 | 0.43 |
| Next 0.5s image | 0.36 | 0.89 | 1.60 | 0.95 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.97 | 0.41 |
| Strategy | L2 (m) | Collision (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | |
| No CoT | 0.38 | 0.93 | 1.67 | 0.99 | 0.13 | 0.35 | 1.18 | 0.56 |
| Raw CoT | 1.32 | 2.50 | 3.62 | 2.48 | 0.17 | 1.06 | 2.97 | 1.40 |
| + 3 Filters | 0.37 | 0.92 | 1.64 | 0.98 | 0.08 | 0.32 | 1.18 | 0.53 |
| + Error feedback | 0.37 | 0.90 | 1.61 | 0.96 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 1.05 | 0.46 |
| Type | L2 (m) | Collision (%) | FID | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | 1s | 2s | 3s | Avg. | Score | |
| None RL | 0.36 | 0.89 | 1.60 | 0.95 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.97 | 0.41 | 9.8 |
| One-stage RL | 0.37 | 0.91 | 1.64 | 0.97 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.95 | 0.42 | 9.7 |
| Progressive RL | 0.35 | 0.87 | 1.57 | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.91 | 0.38 | 9.4 |
| Behavior | Meta Action Type |
|---|---|
| Direction Change | [Maintain Current Lane, Change Lane Left, Change Lane Right, Turn Left, Turn Right] |
| Speed Change | [Smooth Deceleration, Emergency Brake, Maintain Current Speed, Smooth Acceleration, Stop, Remain Stationary] |
| Error Type | Feedback Content Example |
|---|---|
| Format Error | Missing Scene Analysis / … Missing Action Decision part. |
| Decision Error | 1.Direction decision error(GT: Change Lane Right; Prediction: Turn Right). 2.Speed decision error(GT: Smooth Deceleration; Prediction: Maintain Current Speed). |
| Logic Error | Reasoning is discontinuous … consideration is incomplete |
| Model | Layers | Hidden size | Num Heads | Patch Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-VL | 32 | 1280 | 16 | 14 |
| Model | Layers | Hidden size | KV Heads | Head Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-VL | 36 | 2048 | 2 | 128 |