RCVLA: 4D Radar-Grounded Semantic Reasoning and Trajectory Arbitration for Autonomous Driving
Organizations: Tongji · ZJU · HKUST · UTokyo ·
Abstract
4D radar provides geometric and motion cues that complement visual semantics, but integrating it into vision-language-action (VLA) models requires both radar--language alignment for semantic reasoning and explicit use of radar measurements for trajectory refinement and selection. To support these capabilities, we construct Cap4DR with 86,016 radar-image-text samples for alignment pretraining and OmniHD-QA with 520,161 question-answer pairs for instruction tuning across scene description, key-object reasoning, occupancy understanding, and trajectory planning. Building on these datasets, we propose RCVLA, a radar-camera VLA framework consisting of a radar-grounded semantic reasoning stage (RCVLA-Sem) and a trajectory arbitration stage (RCVLA-Phys). RCVLA-Sem performs gated bidirectional interaction between camera and radar tokens for driving question answering and reference trajectory generation, while auxiliary heads provide object and occupancy queries. RCVLA-Phys refines reference-guided trajectory candidates through truncated diffusion conditioned on these queries and cluster-level radar measurements, then calibrates candidate scores using radar-derived time-to-collision risk. On OmniHD-QA, RCVLA-Sem improves CIDEr by 9.92 points and reduces key-object velocity error by relative to OmniDrive. RCVLA-Phys further reduces average L2 error from to and average open-loop collision rate from to relative to RCVLA-Sem. Ablation studies further show that language-aligned radar tokens improve semantic reasoning, while cluster-level radar measurements and risk calibration improve trajectory arbitration. Code will be released.
Figures & tables
| Method | B-1 | B-2 | B-3 | B-4 | R-L | CIDEr | MET. |
| LLaVA-v1.5 | 14.50 | 8.08 | 4.90 | 2.91 | 19.53 | 7.25 | 19.31 |
| Qwen2.5-VL | 28.66 | 15.34 | 9.00 | 5.29 | 22.57 | 22.00 | 30.36 |
| Qwen3-VL | 30.53 | 17.31 | 10.74 | 6.78 | 24.35 | 24.38 | 33.57 |
| InternVL2.5 | 20.28 | 11.79 | 7.37 | 4.55 | 23.01 | 15.17 | 24.92 |
| InternVL3 | 26.85 | 14.82 | 8.82 | 5.28 | 23.05 | 20.45 | 28.28 |
| OmniDrive | 39.80 | 28.48 | 21.90 | 17.38 | 36.98 | 92.49 | 43.13 |
| L2 (m) | Collision (%) | |||||||
| Method | 1 s | 2 s | 3 s | Avg. | 1 s | 2 s | 3 s | Avg. |
| Qwen2.5-VL | 1.239 | 1.774 | 2.488 | 1.834 | 2.870 | 6.389 | 11.111 | 6.790 |
| Qwen3-VL | 0.224 | 0.581 | 1.059 | 0.621 | 0.370 | 2.623 | 6.420 | 3.138 |
| InternVL2.5 | 0.255 | 0.668 | 1.570 | 0.831 | 0.463 | 2.039 | 6.457 | 2.986 |
| InternVL3 | 2.411 | 4.646 | 7.086 | 4.714 | 19.136 | 23.796 | 31.636 | 24.856 |
| UniAD | 0.403 | 0.750 | 1.171 | 0.775 | 0.525 | 1.821 | 3.519 | 1.955 |
VLMs for Autonomous Driving
Vision-language models for autonomous driving connect camera and sensor data with language to interpret scenes, predict hazards, and plan actions.
See all 192 papers