LANTERN: A Closed-Loop Benchmark for VLM-Based Cooperative Driving with Temporally Grounded Warnings
Authors: Yongshuo Liu, Xu Gao, Morui Zhu, Yongqi Zhu, Qi Chen, Deyuan Qu, Song Fu, Qing Yang
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA · Toyota Motor North America, InfoTech Labs, USA
We present LANTERN, a closed-loop benchmark for temporally grounded cooperative warnings. LANTERN separates warning onset, hazard onset, warning termination, and post-hazard recovery, and evaluates each physical event under matched warning and no-warning executions so that the warning's contribution is measured in isolation rather than confounded with onboard vision. The benchmark spans six safety-critical scenario families and provides 3,272 sequences with 236,309 frames for training, together with 120 matched route pairs for closed-loop evaluation. Each hazard route is evaluated under the warning and no-warning conditions, while its no-hazard control penalizes unconditional braking. We further introduce the Cooperative Unified Score (CUS), a safety-gated metric that jointly rewards route progress, anticipation, clearance, and recovery. Fine-tuning a representative VLM driving model raises CUS from 34.6 without warnings to 75.5 with them, demonstrating both the value of cooperative warnings and the discriminative power of the paired protocol. All resources will be made publicly available.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Driving inputs and outputs under the warning and no-warning conditions. Both conditions receive visual observations, ego state, and navigation state; the warning condition additionally receives the cooperative warning during the warning interval.
Benchmark
Benchmark Setting
Cooperative Evaluation
Domain
Loop
Task
Hazard scenarios
Training data
Cooperative input
Information timing
Main metrics
Bench2Drive ( Jia et al. 2024 )
CARLA
Closed
E2E driving
✓
✓
–
–
Driving score, success
SafeBench ( Xu et al. 2022a )
CARLA
Closed
Safety testing
✓
×
–
–
Safety score
Bench2Drive-VL ( Jia et al. 2026 )
CARLA
Closed
VLM driving
✓
✓
–
–
Question answering, score
V2X-VLM ( You et al. 2024 )
Real world
Open
Coop. planning
×
✓
Images and text
Frame-aligned
L2 error, collision rate
MDrive ( Coscoy et al. 2026 )
CARLA/ Real2Sim
Closed
Multi-agent
✓
×
Perception and negotiation
Online
Driving score, route completion, coop. gain
Table 1: Comparison of representative driving benchmarks across benchmark settings and cooperative evaluation protocols. Checkmarks indicate explicit support, while crosses indicate absence.
Scenario family
Cooperative warning template
Pedestrian Emergence
The pedestrian at position <FRONT_CAR_POS> is about to enter the ego lane.
Vehicle Cut-In
The vehicle at position <FRONT_CAR_POS> will cut into the ego lane soon.
Obstacle Reveal
The static object at position <FRONT_CAR_POS> is blocking the ego lane.
Left-Turn Wrong-Way
A wrong-way vehicle at position <FRONT_CAR_POS> will cross the ego left-turn path. Yield before turning left.
Right-Turn Wrong-Way
A wrong-way vehicle at position <FRONT_CAR_POS> will cross the ego right-turn path. Yield before turning right.
Right-Turn Yield
The vehicle at position <FRONT_CAR_POS> will cross the ego right-turn path. Yield before turning right.
Table 2: Cooperative warning templates for the six scenario families. Before inference, <FRONT_CAR_POS> is replaced by the hazard or conflict location (x,y) in the current ego frame, measured in meters with x forward and y right.
Figure 2: Temporal organization of a LANTERN scenario. The warning begins before physical-event onset and terminates when the hazard is first directly observed through the ego vehicle’s onboard sensors.
Figure 3: Aligned observation formats and sensor annotations in LANTERN. The six-camera format provides surround coverage, while the front-view format provides a single 110∘ camera interface. Both support RGB, depth, point clouds, 3D bounding boxes, LiDAR BEV, and semantic segmentation.
Figure 4: Open-loop dataset composition. Bars report Route A hazard sequences and Route B control sequences at the route and frame levels for each scenario family.
Model
PE
VC
OR
LWW
RWW
RTY
Overall
Coop-SimLingo ( warning )
88.9
86.5
95.9
50.6
65.0
66.2
75.5
Coop-SimLingo ( no-warning )
8.0
59.8
55.9
4.2
17.2
62.5
34.6
warning gain (paired)
+80.9
+26.7
+40.0
+46.4
+47.8
+3.7
+40.9
SimLingo ( warning )
59.0
45.4
56.3
13.8
18.2
65.6
43.1
SimLingo ( no-warning )
47.0
42.0
42.1
0.0
4.4
57.5
32.2
VAD
46.2
45.4
47.9
3.5
0.0
19.6
27.1
Table 3: CUS ( ↑ ) by scenario family. Shading highlights the paired warning / no-warning comparison and its gain; Overall is the macro-average, and bold marks the best score.
Continuous components and gate pass (%, ↑ )
Hard-gate failure rate (%, ↓ )
Model
A-Prog.
TTC
Clear.
Ant.
Rec.
B-Prog.
Gate Pass
Coll.-A
RD-A
LC-A
Rule-A
Block-A
False Brake-B
Coop-SimLingo ( warning )
95.4
70.3
97.4
86.7
82.4
93.7
82.5
0.0
0.0
0.8
9.2
5.8
1.7
SimLingo ( warning )
85.1
48.3
63.1
58.3
81.3
90.8
50.0
28.3
1.7
3.3
7.5
24.2
0.0
Coop-SimLingo ( no-warning )
89.2
34.8
44.4
53.5
62.7
93.7
43.3
41.7
0.0
1.7
8.3
19.2
1.7
SimLingo ( no-warning )
83.7
38.4
46.4
54.6
60.1
90.8
37.5
46.7
0.8
2.5
12.5
33.3
0.0
VAD
68.1
44.6
53.0
49.1
62.3
75.3
35.0
28.3
0.8
9.2
6.7
42.5
0.0
Table 4: CUS decomposition over 120 matched Route A/B pairs. Continuous components and Gate Pass are higher-is-better, hard-gate failure rates are lower-is-better, and column-best values are bold.
Scenario
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
DAC ↑
Warning Response ↑
Pedestrian Emergence
2.88
5.76
100.0
93.0
Vehicle Cut-In
2.29
4.65
100.0
88.0
Obstacle Reveal
2.54
4.89
100.0
96.0
Left-Turn Wrong-Way
3.03
6.62
99.0
99.0
Right-Turn Wrong-Way
2.87
6.41
100.0
98.0
Right-Turn Yield
2.81
6.17
95.0
95.0
Table 5: Zero-shot open-loop diagnostics on nuScenes using 100 frames per scenario family. Average Displacement Error (ADE) and Final Displacement Error (FDE) are reported in meters; Drivable-Area Compliance (DAC) and Warning Response are percentages.
Figure 5: Paired nuScenes examples for Coop-SimLingo. Cyan and magenta show no-warning and warning predictions from the same frame; each panel reproduces the complete warning input below the image.
Variant
CUS ↑
A-Prog. ↑
Event Exp. ↑
Ant. ↑
Rec. ↑
Coll.-A ↓
Block-A ↓
Full temporal protocol
75.5
95.4
99.2
86.7
82.4
0.0
5.8
Late warning onset
54.9
95.2
100.0
0.0
73.8
14.9
7.6
Warning beyond termination
63.3
79.6
100.0
84.5
64.1
0.0
29.7
No anti-deadlock rule
51.2
79.0
71.0
87.0
74.2
9.4
35.7
Noisy warning position
75.5
98.4
100.0
87.4
82.1
3.4
3.3
Held-out warning paraphrase
57.7
85.9
100.0
78.6
75.8
25.7
5.9
Table 6: Sensitivity to warning timing, event activation, localization, and wording. Each variant changes one component of the full protocol; all entries use a 0–100 scale.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Sequence-level distribution of the open-loop release and its environmental extension. (a) Town coverage for all 3,272 sequences. (b) Weather profiles and (c) time periods for the 859-sequence extension.
Scenario
Physical event
Warn lead
Event lead
Actor parameters
Clearance and Route B control
Pedestrian Emergence
A pedestrian emerges from behind a large roadside occluder and crosses the ego lane.
18 m
9 m
3 m/s; 22-m crossing; 30-m recovery
Walker and occluder are removed after the crossing. Route B retains only the occluder.
Vehicle Cut-In
A vehicle 21 m ahead in an adjacent same-direction lane merges into the ego lane.
10/17 m
4 m
80–85% reference speed; ≥ 6.5 m/s; 2-s lane change
The actor is handed to Traffic Manager after the merge. Route B keeps it in the adjacent lane.
Obstacle Reveal
A lead van changes lane, exposing a stationary object in the ego lane.
12 m
6 m
Lead at 12–20 km/h; object 12–16 m ahead; 8-s stop limit
The object is removed after the ego response or stop limit. Route B retains the lead vehicle but creates no object.
Left-Turn Wrong-Way
A wrong-way vehicle follows the reverse ego route through the left-turn conflict.
10 m
4 m
7–9 m/s; 25-m spawn offset; 15-m clearance target
Actor is removed after passing the conflict and traveling at least 5 m. Route B sends it in the legal direction.
Right-Turn Wrong-Way
A wrong-way vehicle follows the reverse ego route through the right-turn conflict.
10 m
4 m
7–9 m/s; 20-m spawn offset; 20-m clearance target
Actor is removed after clearing the turn path. Route B sends it in the legal direction.
Right-Turn Yield
Cross traffic from the left traverses the ego vehicle’s right-turn path.
10 m
10 m
8–12 m/s; source interval 10–50 m, extended to 60 m on designated routes; one evaluated passage
Flow ends after the first actor clears the ego route (or a 12-s safety limit). Route B keeps a stationary context actor.
Appendix
Table 7: Temporal and behavioral specification of the six LANTERN scenario families.
Figure 7: Matched predictions for the unseen cyclist event at simulation step 170: no warning (left), free-form warning (center), and held-out paraphrase (right). At this point, the ego speed is 10.5, 4.7, and 6.5 m/s, respectively.
Figure 8: Matched event-on predictions for the emergency crossing (top) and reversing vehicle (bottom). Left panels are from no-warning rollouts; right panels are from rollouts that received the exact warning, which may already have terminated by the displayed event-on frame. The warning-conditioned rollouts exhibit substantially reduced predicted progress.
Wording
Paraphrase CUS
Matched canonical
Retention
Coll.
Low ambiguity ( n=39 )
83.1
77.9
106.7%
0.0%
Medium ambiguity ( n=39 )
51.1
69.2
73.9%
28.2%
High ambiguity, no position ( n=38 )
37.5
69.3
54.1%
50.0%
Appendix
Table 11: Warning-wording ablation by ambiguity. Retention is paraphrase CUS divided by canonical-warning CUS on the same valid routes.
Figure 9: Representative high-ambiguity, position-free warnings. The Obstacle Reveal route completes successfully (left), whereas the Pedestrian Emergence route collides after an insufficient response (right).
Figure 10: Distance-conditioned responses on three held-out S1 control frames. Columns show no-warning , a nearby warning, and the same warning at 100 m. The nearby warning produces a stopping trajectory, whereas the distant warning preserves ordinary progress.
Figure 11: Representative response to a warning about a cyclist traveling away on a physically separated path. The predicted trajectory continues along the route without sustained stopping.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have recently achieved impressive performance for end-to-end autonomous driving, yet existing approaches are primarily designed for an individual single autonomous driving agent with limited support for cooperative perception, reasoning, and planning. We present Cooperative Multi-agent Unified Driving with Reasoning (CMU-Drive), a closed-loop end-to-end benchmark for evaluating cooperative autonomous driving with multiple connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) operating in safety-critical driving scenarios with background traffic participants. We further propose Vehicle-to-Vehicle Vision-Language-Action (V2V-VLA), a cooperative VLA model that integrates cooperative driving into a single forward pass by jointly generating driving actions, future waypoints, language reasoning, and communication policies. Experiments on CMU-Drive establish the first benchmark and baseline for cooperative VLA driving and provide a foundation for future research on multi-agent, closed-loop, end-to-end cooperative autonomous driving. Our code, benchmark, and model checkpoint will be publicly released to facilitate open-source research.
Cooperative autonomous driving requires traffic scene understanding from both vehicle and infrastructure perspectives. While vision-language models (VLMs) show strong general reasoning capabilities, their performance in safety-critical traffic scenarios remains insufficiently evaluated due to the ego-vehicle focus of existing benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we present CrashSight, a large-scale vision-language benchmark for roadway crash understanding using real-world roadside camera data. The dataset comprises 250 crash videos, annotated with 13K multiple-choice question-answer pairs organized under a two-tier taxonomy. Tier 1 evaluates the visual grounding of scene context and involved parties, while Tier 2 probes higher-level reasoning, including crash mechanics, causal attribution, temporal progression, and post-crash outcomes. We benchmark 8 state-of-the-art VLMs and show that, despite strong scene description capabilities, current models struggle with temporal and causal reasoning in safety-critical scenarios. We provide a detailed analysis of failure scenarios and discuss directions for improving VLM crash understanding. The benchmark provides a standardized evaluation framework for infrastructure-assisted perception in cooperative autonomous driving. The CrashSight benchmark, including the full dataset and code, is accessible at https://mcgrche.github.io/crashsight.
Rui Gan, Junyi Ma, Pei Li +4
University of Wisconsin–Madison · University of Wyoming · Columbia University
Vision-language models (VLMs) have made substantial progress in autonomous driving, but their success has primarily been studied in ego-centric scenes. Infrastructure-side observations provide views beyond the ego vehicle's field of view, yet conventional cooperative-driving systems typically transform them into geometric representations for downstream perception and planning. Directly incorporating these views into VLMs offers an opportunity to improve cooperative scene understanding and trajectory planning. However, question answering and trajectory planning have not been jointly evaluated on the same real-world vehicle-infrastructure scenes. We present CoVLM-Bench, a benchmark for cooperative driving question answering (CDQA) and cooperative planning (CP) on vehicle-infrastructure paired scenes. CoVLM-Bench provides scene-grounded CDQA annotations, three-part rationales as auxiliary supervision, and future trajectory targets derived from recorded ego motion. It contains 2,196 paired frames with 35,136 CDQA annotations, while CP predicts six waypoints over a three-second horizon. The annotations combine model-assisted drafting, record-based computation, and human verification. Built upon CoVLM-Bench, we introduce CoVLM-Drive, a unified VLM baseline that directly uses paired views for both CDQA and CP. Experiments show that CDQA adaptation improves answer accuracy and that CoVLM-Drive reaches a lower FDE than the compared V2X planners; QA initialization and rationale supervision each reduce planning error. Together, CoVLM-Bench and CoVLM-Drive support the training and comparison of VLMs for cooperative scene understanding and planning.
Kang Yang, Shuai Liu, Hang Li +3
Renmin University of China · Hebei Key Laboratory of Real-virtual Integrated Autonomous Systems (RIAS)