G-MARK: Grounded Multi-Agent Reasoning for Cooperative Driving via Knowledge Graphs
Organizations: University of California, San Diego, CA, USA · West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
Abstract
Autonomous driving systems must operate under partial observability, where safety-critical objects may be occluded or visible only to neighboring connected vehicles. Vehicle-to-vehicle cooperation can reduce this uncertainty, but existing cooperative driving methods often compress multi-agent evidence into latent features or hidden multimodal states. As a result, they obscure which agent observed each object, whether the object is visible to the ego vehicle, and how conflicting evidence affects downstream decisions. We propose G-MARK, a grounded multi-agent reasoning framework that converts cooperative object-centric observations into explicit provenance-aware knowledge graphs (KGs). The resulting KGs preserve object hypotheses together with their source attribution, ego-versus-partner visibility, uncertainty, conflicts, spatial relations, and planning-relevant context. G-MARK then derives a shared feature representation from these KGs, enabling lightweight task heads to support object reasoning, motion prediction, control selection, and trajectory forecasting. Compared with the state-of-the-art baseline, GMARK improves occlusion reasoning accuracy by 42.2%, reduces control-selection error by 13.1%, and achieves comparable trajectory-planning accuracy with a 25.6x smaller structured communication payload. Our code is available at https://github.com/bhavyagupta98/g-mark.
Figures & tables
| Capability | Cooperative Perception [ 6 ] / V2X Fusion [ 7 ] | Language / VLM Driving Reasoning [ 8 ] | Structured Scene and KG-based Reasoning [ 14 ] | Cooperative Language-Based Reasoning [ 13 ] | G-MARK (Ours) |
| Multi-agent evidence | ✓ | — | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Object provenance | — | — | ✓ | ||
| Ego-versus-partner visibility | — | — | ✓ | ||
| Uncertainty / conflict | — | ✓ | |||
| Planning relevance | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Reusable across tasks | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Category | Role in downstream reasoning |
|---|---|
| Provenance and support | Stores source agents, support counts, and ego/partner/cooperative status to trace object evidence. |
| Agent visibility | Stores ego-relative and agent-relative visibility for occlusion and hidden-object reasoning. |
| Uncertainty and reliability | Marks weak, ambiguous, or candidate hypotheses so they are not treated as fully reliable. |
| Cross-agent disagreement | Records geometric or semantic inconsistency among agents to expose conflicting evidence. |
| Planning relevance | Stores trajectory proximity, motion cues, and control context. |
| Head family | Role in downstream reasoning |
|---|---|
| Selection and visibility reasoning | Retrieves visible, occluded, hidden, or planning-relevant objects using KG evidence. |
| Motion and interaction prediction | Predicts object or agent behavior from state, motion, support, uncertainty, and path-relative geometry. |
| Control and trajectory planning | Predicts controls or future waypoints from risk, planning relevance, geometry, and trajectory context. |
| Task | Task family | Metric | G-MARK | V2V-GoT [ 13 ] | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notable Objects (Q1) | Visible-object grounding | [email protected] | 0.586 | 0.525 | +11.6% |
| Occluding Objects (Q2) | Occlusion reasoning | [email protected] | 0.428 | 0.301 | +42.2% |
| Invisible Objects (Q3) | Hidden-object discovery | [email protected] | 0.494 | 0.440 | +12.3% |
| Planning Awareness (Q4) | Planning-relevance reasoning | [email protected] | 0.614 | 0.608 | +0.9% |
| Object Motion (Q5) | Object motion prediction | L2 avg. | 3.822 | 8.050 | +52.5% |
| Agent Motion (Q6) | Agent motion prediction | Accuracy | 0.905 | 0.874 | +3.5% |