Organizations: Tsinghua University · University of Macau · University of Science and Technology of China · Beijing Jiaotong University · Nanyang Technological University
Reinforcement Learning (RL) substantially improves planning performance in autonomous-driving Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models. However, existing RL methods rely on scalar trajectory rewards that measure overall quality but fail to identify specific planning errors or provide actionable correction signals. In long-tail scenarios, errors in scene understanding, behavior selection, and trajectory execution are compressed into a single score. We observe that Reflective Guidance turns trajectory evaluation into explicit diagnoses and corrective instructions, substantially improving planning accuracy. Yet such guidance requires an initial prediction and its evaluation results, making it unavailable for direct single-pass inference. We propose Reflect-VLA, which treats Reflective Guidance as training-time privileged information and internalizes its planning benefits through Dual-Path On-Policy Self-Distillation (Dual-OPSD). Unlike scalar-reward optimization, Dual-OPSD uses the driving score only to route student-generated trajectories. It distills dense token-level corrective distributions from the teacher for risky trajectories while applying self-imitation to preserve reliable ones. To provide reliable corrective distributions on student rollouts, the teacher is progressively constructed through Driving-Knowledge Pretraining, Planning-and-Refinement SFT, and Self-Refinement Rejection Sampling. At inference time, Reflect-VLA generates trajectories in a single pass without explicit guidance or iterative refinement. Experiments on NAVSIM v1/v2 and Bench2Drive demonstrate competitive planning performance while reducing training time by over 90% compared with RL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: From Reflective Guidance to Internalized Planning. (a) Reflective Guidance corrects an unsafe initial trajectory during iterative inference, revealing substantial planning gains. (b) Reflect-VLA transfers these gains through Dual-OPSD by aligning teacher and student token distributions along student-generated trajectories. (c) Across different model scales, Reflect-VLA improves planning performance over SFT while requiring substantially less training time than RL, enabling guidance-free single-pass planning.
Figure 2: Overview of Reflect-VLA. Reflective Guidance is constructed from trajectory evaluation and used as privileged information to train a refinement-capable teacher. Dual-OPSD then transfers corrective distributions to the student on risky trajectories while preserving reliable student trajectories. Only the student is used for single-pass inference.
Method
Image
Lidar
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
End-to-End Methods
UniAD ( Hu et al. 2023 )
✓
97.8
91.9
92.9
100
78.8
83.4
TransFuser ( Chitta et al. 2022 )
✓
✓
97.7
92.8
92.9
100
84.0
84.0
DiffusionDrive ( Liao et al. 2025 )
✓
✓
98.2
96.2
94.7
100
82.2
88.1
WoTE ( Li et al. 2025b )
✓
✓
98.5
96.8
94.9
99.9
81.9
88.3
DVGT-2 ( Zuo et al. 2026 )
✓
98.7
97.9
95.8
100
84.3
90.3
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on NAVSIMv1 with PDMS.
Method
NC ↑
DAC ↑
DDC ↑
TLC ↑
EP ↑
TTC ↑
LK ↑
HC ↑
EC ↑
EPDMS ↑
Ego Status
93.1
77.9
92.7
99.6
86.0
91.5
89.4
98.3
85.4
64.0
TransFuser ( Chitta et al. 2022 )
96.9
89.9
97.8
99.7
87.1
95.4
92.7
98.3
87.2
76.7
DiffusionDrive ( Liao et al. 2025 )
98.2
95.9
99.4
99.8
87.5
97.3
96.8
98.3
87.7
84.5
HydraMDP++ ( Li et al. 2024 )
98.5
98.5
99.5
99.7
87.4
97.9
95.8
98.2
75.7
85.6
DriveVLA-W0-7B ( Li et al. 2025a )
98.5
99.1
98.0
99.7
86.4
98.1
93.2
97.9
58.9
86.1
Reflect-VLA-0.8B
98.8
96.7
99.1
99.7
87.5
98.3
96.5
98.3
86.2
88.8
Table 2: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on NAVSIMv2 with EPDMS.
Method
DS ↑
SR (%) ↑
Effi ↑
Comf ↑
End-to-End Methods
VAD ( Jiang et al. 2023 )
42.35
15.00
157.94
46.01
UniAD-Base ( Hu et al. 2023 )
45.81
16.36
129.21
43.58
DriveAdapter ( Jia et al. 2023 )
64.22
33.08
70.22
16.01
Vision-Language-Action Methods
ReasonPlan ( Liu et al. 2025 )
64.01
34.55
180.64
25.63
Table 3: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on the Bench2Drive benchmark with DS (Driving Score), SR (Success Rate), Effi (Efficiency), and Comf (Comfortness).
Method
Student
Teacher
OPSD
Reflect-VLA-0.8B
86.3
92.4
89.3
Reflect-VLA-2B
87.4
92.7
90.0
Reflect-VLA-4B
88.4
93.2
91.5
Table 4: Planning performance of the student, teacher, and student after Dual-OPSD on NAVSIMv1 using PDMS, where student and teacher refer to the same model after three-stage SFT performing trajectory prediction without and with guidance, respectively.
Base Model
SFT
GRPO
OPSD
Qwen3.5-0.8B
0.11
5.3
1.3
Qwen3.5-2B
0.26
22.3
1.7
Qwen3.5-4B
0.43
33.4
2.4
Table 5: Comparison of training time (hours) per 10k samples for SFT, GRPO, and OPSD across different model scales.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparisons and token-level analysis. Left and middle: trajectories generated by the unguided student, guidance-conditioned teacher, and distilled student. Right: distributions over special trajectory tokens at critical decoding steps under the same student-generated prefix. Each token encodes a relative displacement quantized at 0.01 m resolution; e.g., <| x_208 |> represents a 2.08 m forward displacement for the next waypoint.
Model
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
SFT
98.5
96.3
94.9
100
81.7
88.1
Pre+SFT
98.7
96.5
95.4
100
82.1
88.5
Pre+SFT+RS
98.6
96.4
95.3
100
82.2
88.4
Pre+SFT+OPSD
98.9
97.1
95.8
100
84.7
90.2
Pre+SFT+RS+OPSD
98.9
98.0
96.7
100
86.0
91.5
Table 6: Ablation study of training stages. We evaluate the effect of pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, rejection sampling and on-policy self-distillation on driving performance using NAVSIM evaluation metrics with the 4B model.
ID
Trajectory
Planning
Expert
Refinement
PDMS ↑
Verdict
Diagnosis
Alignment
Directive
1
✓
✓
✓
93.1
2
✓
✓
✓
92.4
3
✓
✓
✓
92.1
4
✓
✓
✓
92.9
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
93.2
Table 7: Ablation study of reflective guidance components for the teacher model. We report the NAVSIM PDMS of the 4B teacher when conditioned on different combinations of guidance components.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
VLM Model
L2 (m) ↓
Collision (%) ↓
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
Traditional End-to-end Methods
UniAD* ( Hu et al. 2023 )
-
0.20
0.42
0.75
0.46
0.02
0.25
0.84
0.37
Vision-Language-Action Methods
Doe-1 ( Zheng et al. 2024 )
Lumina-mGPT-7B
0.50
1.18
2.11
1.26
0.04
0.37
1.19
0.53
AutoVLA* ( Zhou et al. 2025b )
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
0.28
0.66
1.16
0.70
0.14
0.25
0.53
0.31
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on nuScenes. * indicates that ego status is used.
Top-K
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
Top-16
98.7
97.5
95.1
100
85.4
90.2
Top-64 (ours)
98.9
98.0
96.7
100
86.0
91.5
Top-256
98.9
97.9
96.5
100
86.0
91.4
Full Vocab
98.9
97.9
96.7
100
86.0
91.5
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study of the top- k truncation used for token-level distillation on NAVSIM with the 4B model.
Direction
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
Forward KL
98.9
97.8
95.9
100
85.8
91.0
Reverse KL(ours)
98.9
98.0
96.7
100
86.0
91.5
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study of the KL-divergence direction used for token-level distillation on NAVSIM with the 4B model.
Threshold s
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
0.65
98.9
97.8
96.0
100
85.9
91.1
0.75
98.9
97.8
96.4
100
86.0
91.3
0.85 (ours)
98.9
98.0
96.7
100
86.0
91.5
0.95
98.9
97.8
96.2
100
86.0
91.2
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation study of the PDMS routing threshold s in Dual-OPSD on NAVSIM with the 4B model.
Stage
Hyper-parameter
Value
Pretraining
Epochs
2
Batch size
1
Learning rate
1×10−5
Gradient accumulation steps
2
Optimizer
Adam
Weight decay
0.05
Appendix
Table 12: Training hyperparameters of Reflect-VLA.
Figure 4: Detailed qualitative visualization of Reflect-VLA. We present three representative failure cases: Drivable-Area Violation , Insufficient TTC Margin , and At-Fault Collision Risk . For each scenario, we show the front-view image, the initial student trajectory, the guidance-conditioned teacher trajectory, and the distilled student trajectory, together with the constructed Reflective Guidance and the corresponding token-level distribution comparison at a critical waypoint under the same student-generated prefix. The results illustrate how Reflective Guidance shifts the teacher toward safer and more expert-aligned trajectory tokens, and how Dual-OPSD transfers these corrective preferences to the distilled student.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models for autonomous driving rely heavily on successful expert demonstrations, leaving model-specific failures underexploited. Learning from these failures is hindered by unreliable diagnoses, poorly matched correction targets, and coarse rewards. We propose RefineDrive, a failure-guided post-training framework that learns from self-generated failures through targeted supervision and safety-aware reinforcement learning. Reliable Diagnosis derives structured, verifiable feedback on collisions and drivable-area violations directly from simulator states. Minimum-Correction Target Retrieval searches a clustered human trajectory bank for nearby corrections that satisfy hard-safety constraints in the current scene, prioritizing preservation of the failed prediction's motion pattern. Conditioned on the driving context and failed trajectory, Correction SFT learns to generate the diagnosis followed by the retrieved correction as a training-only auxiliary task. We then apply GRPO with a Safety-Layered Reward that strictly prioritizes hard-safe trajectories, retains continuous safety feedback for both unsafe and hard-safe trajectories, and rewards driving progress only after hard safety is satisfied. At inference, the policy directly predicts trajectories from the driving context without an explicit diagnosis or repair stage. On NAVSIM v1, RefineDrive improves the 4B base SFT policy from 87.7 to 91.7 PDMS. Using the same checkpoint without additional training, RefineDrive achieves 89.4 EPDMS on the original NAVTEST scenes evaluated with NAVSIM v2 extended metrics. Controlled ablations support the benefits of structured diagnosis supervision, retrieved corrections, and safety-layered optimization for direct planning.
Zhe Sun, Ziyi Luo, Yehao Lu +2
College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models for autonomous driving often hit a performance plateau during Reinforcement Learning (RL) optimization. This stagnation arises from exploration capabilities constrained by previous Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), leading to persistent failures in long-tail scenarios. In these critical situations, all explored actions yield a zero-value driving score. This information-sparse reward signals a failure, yet fails to identify its root cause -- whether it is due to incorrect planning, flawed reasoning, or poor trajectory execution. To address this limitation, we propose VLA with Explicit Learning from Failures (ELF-VLA), a framework that augments RL with structured diagnostic feedback. Instead of relying on a vague scalar reward, our method produces detailed, interpretable reports that identify the specific failure mode. The VLA policy then leverages this explicit feedback to generate a Feedback-Guided Refinement. By injecting these corrected, high-reward samples back into the RL training batch, our approach provides a targeted gradient, which enables the policy to solve critical scenarios that unguided exploration cannot. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method unlocks the latent capabilities of VLA models, achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the public NAVSIM benchmark for overall PDMS, EPDMS score and high-level planning accuracy.
Yuechen Luo, Qimao Chen, Fang Li +5
Tsinghua University · University of Macau · Beijing Jiaotong University
Recent Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have advanced end-to-end autonomous driving by incorporating reasoning for better interpretability and planning quality. However, most existing approaches directly generate the final trajectory without explicitly examining its future consequences, which limits their reliability in complex and dynamic environments. To address this limitation, we propose IRR-Drive (Intend, Reflect, Refine), an adaptive multimodal reflection framework for autonomous driving. Specifically, to tightly couple high-level reasoning with physical constraints, IRR-Drive first generates a preliminary textual intention and anticipates potential interactions by predicting future semantic bird's-eye view (BEV) representations. This dual-modality (Text + BEV) reflection space explicitly models anticipated scene evolution, enabling the model to rigorously self-correct and refine its initial intent before generating the final trajectory. Furthermore, to balance planning performance and computational efficiency, we construct reflection-oriented training data and design an adaptive reflection reward, enabling the model to adaptively select its reasoning mode according to scene complexity. Instead of using reasoning primarily as an auxiliary interpretation, IRR-Drive directly integrates an adaptive reflection mechanism into the planning framework, enabling grounded, decision-aware trajectory correction that is driven by scene complexity. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on the NAVSIM benchmark in both PDMS and EPDMS. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our multimodal reflection framework and validate the efficacy of the proposed adaptive reflection strategy.
Zisheng Chen, Yuping Qiu, Jianhua Han +6
Sun Yat-sen University · HKUST(GZ) · Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.