Organizations: Institute of Trustworthy Embodied AI, Fudan University and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multimodal Embodied AI, Shanghai, 200441, China. · School of Computer Science & School of Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China.
With the rise of vision-language models (VLM), their application for autonomous driving (VLM4AD) has gained significant attention. Meanwhile, in autonomous driving, closed-loop evaluation has become widely recognized as a more reliable validation method than open-loop evaluation, as it can evaluate the performance of the model under cumulative errors and out-of-distribution inputs. However, existing VLM4AD benchmarks evaluate the model`s scene understanding ability under open-loop, i.e., via static question-answer (QA) dataset. This kind of evaluation fails to assess the VLMs performance under out-of-distribution states rarely appeared in the human collected datasets.To this end, we present Bench2Drive-VL, an extension of Bench2Drive that brings closed-loop evaluation to VLM-based driving, which introduces: (1) DriveCommenter, a closed-loop generator that automatically generates diverse, behavior-grounded question-answer pairs for all driving situations in CARLA,including severe off-route and off-road deviations previously unassessable in simulation. (2) A unified protocol and interface that allows modern VLMs to be directly plugged into the Bench2Drive closed-loop environment to compare with traditional agents. (3) A flexible reasoning and control framework, supporting multi-format visual inputs and configurable graph-based chain-of-thought execution. (4) A complete development ecosystem. Together, these components form a comprehensive closed-loop benchmark for VLM4AD. All codes and annotated datasets are open sourced.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the Bench2Drive-VL. (i) The expert model DriveCommenter leverages privileged information to generate ground-truth answers for vision-language questions. (ii) The VLM under evaluation takes annotated sensor data as input, answers the same questions, and controls the ego vehicle. (iii) A VQA evaluator compares the VLM’s responses to the ground truth provided by DriveCommenter, while the action module converts the VLM’s natural language instructions into control signals for vehicle actuation.
Benchmark
Open-loop
Closed-loop
Percept.
Predict.
Plan.
Behavior
Percept.
Predict.
Plan.
Behavior
LangAuto [ 2 ]
CARLA
DriveBench [ 17 ]
VQA
VQA
VQA
VQA
DrivingVQA [ 18 ]
VQA
VQA
VQA
VQA
DriveLMM-o1 [ 26 ]
VQA
VQA
VQA
VQA
VLADBench [ 19 ]
VQA
VQA
VQA
traj. L2
TABLE I: Comparison of VLM4AD Benchmarks.
Fig. 2: Overview of the Bench2Drive-VL closed-loop evaluation framework. The expert model DriveCommenter leverages privileged information to generate ground-truth answers for vision-language questions. The VLM under evaluation takes sensor data as input, answers the same questions, and controls the ego vehicle. A VQA evaluator compares the VLM’s responses to the ground truth provided by DriveCommenter, while the action module converts the VLM’s natural language instructions into control signals.
Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6
Fig. 9: Overview of DriveCommenter. Our VQAs cover all tasks (perception, prediction, planning, behaviour) related to all categories (vehicles, pedestrians, traffic signs, weather and scene layouts).
Fig. 10: Example of A Frame Annotated by DriveCommenter. Only few questions are shown for space.
QID
Question
DriveLM -CARLA
Drive Commenter
Perception
1
How many pedestrians are there?
✓
✓
2
Is the ego vehicle affected by a stop sign?
✓
✓
3
Is the ego vehicle affected by a speed limit sign?
✓
4
List the traffic signs affecting the ego vehicle in the current scenario.
✓
5
Is the ego vehicle affected by a traffic light?
✓
✓
TABLE II: Comparison of questions supported by DriveCommenter and DriveLM-CARLA’s automatic annotation method.
Fig. 11: Comparison between Existing VLM4AD Annotation Methods and DriveCommenter under Out-of-Distribution (OOD) Conditions. Existing methods focus on states that lie close to the expert trajectory, leaving a large portion of the simulator state space underexplored. In contrast, DriveCommenter is capable of covering and annotating a much broader set of OOD states.
Fig. 12: Visual Inputs Provided by Bench2Drive-VL. Annotated RGB Images (left) and BEV Maps (right).
Fig. 13: The Corresponding Chain-of-Graph Reasoning Flow.
Model
Input
Chain
Imp. Obj.
T. Sign
S. Limit
Col. Obj.
C. Lane
Brake
A. Desc
A. Keys
DriveCommenter
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
cam
yes
53.62
75.47
27.58
5.21
81.81
62.94
69.69
46.51
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
BEV
yes
52.07
74.08
25.22
6.18
80.87
57.31
63.69
45.37
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
cam
no
50.37
78.76
24.64
4.82
75.04
57.67
58.07
51.03
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
BEV
no
53.45
72.06
30.33
8.31
66.27
50.39
52.63
44.42
Gemma3-4b-it
cam
yes
60.52
21.24
19.34
7.29
25.07
30.32
15.27
13.47
TABLE III: VQA performance of different VLMs with various integration strategies under Bench2Drive-VL . Abbreviations: Imp. Obj. = Import Objects (Q19), T. Sign = Traffic Sign (Q15), S. Limit = Speed Limit (Q7), Col. Obj. = Collide Object (Q47), C. Lane = Change Lane (Q13), Brake = (Q8), A. Desc. = Action Description (Q43), A. Key = Action Keys (Q50).
Model
Input
Chain
Driving Score ↑
Success Rate (%) ↑
Efficiency ↑
Comfortness ↑
DriveCommenter
100.00
100.00
154.91
12.48
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
cam
yes
42.24
0.00
65.61
36.20
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
BEV
yes
48.05
0.00
84.79
38.63
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
cam
no
58.93
20.00
74.72
37.67
Qwen2.5VL-3B-Instruct
BEV
no
41.44
20.00
82.41
47.01
Gemma3-4b-it
cam
yes
15.04
0.00
60.10
34.79
TABLE IV: Planning performance of different VLMs with various integration strategies under Bench2Drive-VL .
Fig. 14: Failure Case of CoT: Speed Limit Hallucation.
Fig. 15: Failure Case of BEV Map Input: Incorrect Lane Change.
Evaluating VLM-based autonomous driving remains difficult because driving competence is composite, where a capable system must ground traffic participants and hazards, integrate context across views and time, reason about future evolution, and act appropriately under closed-loop interaction. Existing benchmarks usually assess either open-loop understanding or closed-loop driving but provide limited structure for explaining how these abilities are organized, how they relate, and how they may inform model diagnosis and improvement. We present DriveHierarchy, a hierarchical benchmark that organizes VLM-based autonomous driving into four ranks, spanning perceptual grounding, contextual memory, mental reasoning, and closed-loop execution. To instantiate this hierarchy, we integrate multiple open-source autonomous-driving datasets into a unified open-loop benchmark with 76,798 question-answer pairs over 84,279 frames and develop a closed-loop simulation platform with interactive scenario construction on a real-world road network, from which 100 driving scenarios are curated for embodied evaluation. Experiments on 15 VLMs show that DriveHierarchy captures structured but non-redundant capability variation, relates open-loop understanding to closed-loop driving, and provides a practical basis for diagnosis and benchmark-guided optimization. DriveHierarchy therefore serves as a unified framework for evaluating and improving VLM-based autonomous driving systems. An anonymized project has been released on https://github.com/PerfectXu88/DriveHierarchy
Chengkai Xu, Jiaqi Liu, Yicheng Guo +2
College of Transportation, Tongji University, Shanghai, China · Department of Computer Science, UNC Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Rapid advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have generated growing interest in their application to autonomous driving. A prevailing assumption is that successive VLM generations will continually improve driving performance and eventually outperform state-of-the-art methods. To systematically examine this assumption, we introduce LightEMMA, a longitudinal framework for evaluating the autonomous driving performance of VLMs. LightEMMA uses a lightweight, unified evaluation protocol that assesses each model's intrinsic driving capability without model-specific fine-tuning, architectural changes, or prompt engineering. Using this protocol, we evaluate 15 models from five major families on the challenging nuScenes prediction benchmark. Empirical findings show that, despite increased model scale and enhanced general reasoning capabilities, successive VLM generations do not consistently achieve better driving performance. Further analysis of driving scenarios reveals recurring failure modes, including overreliance on historical actions and difficulty reconciling conflicting visual cues. These findings highlight the need for domain-specific adaptation to improve the safety of VLM-based autonomous driving systems. The source code is available at https://github.com/michigan-traffic-lab/LightEMMA.
Zhijie Qiao, Haowei Li, Zhong Cao +1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA · University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Spatiotemporal intelligence in autonomous driving (AD) requires an agent to integrate multi-view observations into a coherent scene representation, maintain object continuity across viewpoints and time, and reason about spatial relations, interactions, and future dynamics. However, existing AD vision-language benchmarks largely focus on single-view, static, ego-centric, or single-source question answering, leaving it unclear whether current Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can truly construct and reason over dynamic driving scenes. We introduce DriveSpatial, a benchmark of 15.6K human-verified QA pairs across 20 tasks from five large-scale AD datasets. DriveSpatial evaluates four abilities: Cognitive Scene Construction, Multi-view Relational Understanding, Temporal Reasoning, and Generalization. Unlike prior benchmarks, DriveSpatial is generated from a dynamic multi-relational scene graph that encodes object states, spatial relations, interactions, camera visibility, and temporal correspondences, enabling QA pairs that enforce genuine cross-view and spatiotemporal reasoning. Evaluating 15 representative VLMs reveals a substantial human-model gap: the strongest model trails humans by 28.4 points, with Cognitive Scene Construction emerging as the key bottleneck. Further diagnostics show that language-only prompting is insufficient, while explicit BEV grounding consistently improves performance. These results suggest that current VLMs lack the scene-construction ability needed for reliable spatiotemporal driving intelligence. DriveSpatial and its construction pipeline will be released to support future research.
Hao Vo, Khoa Vo, Phu Loc Nguyen +10
University of Arkansas, USA · Google Research, Google · University of Liverpool, UK +1