Neuro-Symbolic Drive: Rule-Grounded Faithful Reasoning for Driving VLAs

Vision-language-action (VLA) models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning alongside driving trajectories, but existing benchmarks evaluate only trajectory quality and do not assess whether the CoT is relevant, consistent, or causally connected to the driving action. We introduce VLADriveBench, a framework that combines observational metrics (mentioning, hallucination, contradiction, action alignment) with a CoT intervention protocol to provide complementary views of the CoT-action relationship. Applying VLADriveBench to three models across two architectures, we find that the two analyses can diverge sharply: ORION scores highest on observational alignment yet its CoT is epiphenomenal, while Alpamayo v1.5 scores lower yet its CoT is strongly causal, with visual salience gating the extent of CoT influence.

Modern Vision-Language-Action (VLA) planners for autonomous driving emit a chain-of-causation (CoC) reasoning step \emph{before} producing a trajectory. The reasoning is autoregressive and dominates inference latency, while the trajectory head is parallel and cheap. Latency is an operational constraint in autonomous driving, so accelerating the reasoning step is the central problem we address. We observe that CoC reasoning has two qualitatively different needs: most tokens continue routine setup that follows naturally from the ego-trajectory history, and a small fraction encode commitments that require fresh visual evidence about an unexpected situation. We split this reasoning into two specialized paths: a \emph{routine reasoner} that handles the predictable continuation by attending to trajectory history, and a \emph{deliberative reasoner} (the unmodified VLA target) that handles novel cases by attending to current visual evidence, using the speculative decoding framework as the architectural template for how the two paths cooperate. Unlike standard speculative decoding, our routine reasoner is not a smaller replica of the target; the two reasoners are deliberately specialized to read different parts of the prompt. We propose two techniques to realize this. First, we introduce \textbf{FlatRoPE}, a 1D rotary positional embedding in the draft that breaks the rotational symmetry of the target's 3D M-RoPE, redirecting attention away from visual tokens and onto trajectory-history tokens. Second, we introduce \textbf{Action-aware RL (AARL)}, a post-training stage that uses an action-quality reward together with a static-reference KL anchor. Together, our two-reasoner system reduces the reasoning-step running time by approximately $4\times$ relative to the original Alpamayo planner.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models with integrated reasoning have been proposed for end-to-end autonomous driving, assuming a tight coupling between reasoning and trajectory generation. However, the robustness of such systems under realistic input perturbations remains largely unexplored. We show that these models are highly vulnerable to realistic input perturbations, achieving up to 89% attack success rate (ASR) on reasoning and up to 72% on trajectory manipulation in closed-loop simulation, leading to increased collision rates and degraded safety metrics. Using NVIDIA's recent Alpamayo models as representative industry-developed VLAs, we conduct the first systematic black-box study of reasoning-enabled VLA models under realistic textual input corruptions, evaluating their impact on reasoning and driving behavior. We introduce a reasoning-aware evaluation framework capturing both semantic and structural aspects of reasoning, along with safety-centric measures. We also introduce a benchmark for evaluating attacks and defenses on reasoning-trajectory interactions in autonomous driving. Our results highlight the need for rigorous evaluation and improved defenses to ensure the safety of reasoning-enabled VLA systems in autonomous driving.