DriveMind: Mind-Evolving Belief Tracking for Closed-Loop Autonomous Driving
Organizations: University of Washington · McGill University · University of Michigan
Abstract
Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perceive a traffic scene, reason about it, and propose a driving action within a single model. However, existing MLLM-based drivers reason from scratch at each frame and commit to a single explanation, discarding earlier hypotheses about the scene. When the scene is ambiguous, the agent locks in on the wrong interpretation and acts on it before evidence accumulates. In this paper, we propose DriveMind, an MLLM-based driving framework that keeps several hypotheses about the scene alive at the same time and updates their weights as new frames arrive. Inspired by particle filtering, DriveMind propagates each hypothesis through a VLM, scores it against the current observation, and resamples to maintain diversity. On Bench2Drive, adding belief tracking to the same driving pipeline improves the Driving Score (DS) from 68.50 to 81.37 and the Success Rate (SR) from 41.36% to 54.09%. The largest gains occur on ambiguous scenarios such as unsignalized intersections (+20.0 DS) and oncoming-traffic interactions (+20.5 DS). Beyond the overall metrics, DriveMind also improves fine-grained interactive driving abilities such as merging, emergency braking, and give-way.
Figures & tables
| Scenario Category | DS | SR (%) | DS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DriveMind w/o belief | DriveMind | DriveMind w/o belief | DriveMind | ||
| Unsignalized Intersection | 54.4 | 74.4 | 16.7 | 30.0 | +20.0 |
| Opposite Direction | 42.7 | 63.2 | 13.3 | 13.3 | +20.5 |
| Pedestrian Crossing | 53.3 | 70.2 | 20.0 | 30.0 | +16.9 |
| Obstacle / Hazard | 84.0 | 98.7 | 73.3 | 96.7 | +14.7 |
| Merging | 72.0 | 85.6 | 50.0 | 70.0 | +13.6 |
| Scenario | DS | SR (%) | DS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | DriveMind | Baseline | DriveMind | ||
| Parking–Crossing Pedestrian | 53.2 | 100.0 | 20 | 100 | +46.8 |
| Merger into Slow Traffic (V2) | 44.0 | 79.2 | 0 | 60 | +35.2 |
| Hazard at Side Lane (Two Ways) | 66.6 | 100.0 | 40 | 100 | +33.4 |
| Non-Signalized Junction Right Turn | 49.7 | 81.6 | 20 | 40 | +31.9 |
| T-Junction | 59.2 | 86.0 | 0 | 60 | +26.8 |
| Component-level latency | System-level latency | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | Mean (ms) | P95 (ms) | Setting | Mean (ms) |
| High Level Hypothesis Evolving ( ) | 74.0 | 77.9 | Synchronous baseline | 177.0 |
| High Level Hypothesis Evolving ( ) | 120.0 | 125.4 | Async refresh ( ) | 94.7 |
| High Level Hypothesis Evolving ( ) | 165.5 | 167.6 | Async refresh ( ) | 65.5 |
| Low-level control | 45.0 | 45.0 | Async refresh ( ) | 57.1 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| VLM Learning Rate | Diffusion Learning Rate | ||
| VLM Batch Size | 8 | Diffusion Batch Size | 256 |
| Weight Decay (VLM) | 0.0001 | DDPM Steps | 20 |
| Max Sequence Length | 2048 | Weight Decay (Diffusion) | 0.0005 |
| Method | NC | DAC | TTC | Comf. | EP | PDMS |
| Constant Velocity | 68.0 | 57.8 | 50.0 | 100 | 19.4 | 20.6 |
| Ego Status MLP | 93.0 | 77.3 | 83.6 | 100 | 62.8 | 65.6 |
| VADv2- ( Jiang et al., 2026 ) | 97.2 | 89.1 | 91.6 | 100 | 76.0 | 80.9 |
| DrivingGPT ( Chen et al., 2025 ) | 98.9 | 90.7 | 94.9 | 95.6 | 79.7 | 82.4 |
| UniAD ( Hu et al., 2023 ) | 97.8 | 91.9 | 92.9 | 100 | 78.8 | 83.4 |
| TransFuser ( Chitta et al., 2023 ) | 97.7 | 92.8 | 92.8 | 100 | 79.2 | 84.0 |
Autonomous Driving
Autonomous driving develops vehicles that perceive road scenes, predict interactions, and plan and control safe movement with limited or no human input.
See all 534 papers