mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

EgoDyn-Bench: Evaluating Ego-Motion Understanding in Vision-Centric Foundation Models for Autonomous Driving

arXiv 2604.22851 ↗First posted 22 Apr 2026cs.CV cs.CL cs.ROcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Chain-of-thought reasoning for driving

also in 2 more
Abstract (arXiv)

While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have advanced high-level reasoning in autonomous driving, their ability to ground this reasoning in the underlying physics of ego-motion remains poorly understood. We introduce EgoDyn-Bench [Project page: (https://tum-avs.github.io/EgoDyn-Bench-Website/), Code: (https://github.com/TUM-AVS/EgoDyn-Bench), Dataset: (https://huggingface.co/datasets/fnc1901/EgoDyn-Bench)], a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating the semantic ego-motion understanding of vision-centric foundation models. By mapping continuous vehicle kinematics to discrete motion concepts via a deterministic oracle, we decouple a model's internal physical logic from its visual perception. Our large-scale empirical audit spanning 20+ models, including closed-source MLLMs, open-source VLMs across multiple scales, and specialized VLAs, identifies a significant Perception Bottleneck: while models exhibit logical physical concepts, they consistently fail to accurately align them with visual observations, frequently underperforming classical non-learned geometric baselines. This failure persists across model scales and domain-specific training, indicating a structural deficit in how current architectures couple visual perception with physical reasoning. We demonstrate that providing explicit trajectory encodings substantially restores physical consistency across all evaluated models, revealing a functional disentanglement between vision and language: ego-motion logic is derived almost exclusively from the language modality, while visual observations contribute negligible temporal signal. This structural finding provides a standardized diagnostic framework and a practical pathway toward physically aligned embodied AI. Ego-motion - Physical Reasoning - Foundation Models

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Chain-of-thought reasoning for driving, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 27 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2026.

Builds on

27 of 47 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Reason2Drive: Towards Interpretable and Chain-based Reasoning for Autonomous Driving6 Dec

Other references · 26

  1. 2019nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous drivingcited by 4,523
  2. 2016Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,516
  3. 2019Scalability in Perception for Autonomous Driving: Waymo Open Datasetcited by 2,451
  4. 2017CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulatorcited by 2,449
  5. 2020RAFT: Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms for Optical Flowcited by 2,415
  6. 2025InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Modelscited by 1,834
  7. 2025Cosmos World Foundation Model Platform for Physical AIcited by 864
  8. 2023DriveLM: Driving with Graph Visual Question Answeringcited by 536
  9. 2024DriveVLM: The Convergence of Autonomous Driving and Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 490
  10. 2023DriveGPT4: Interpretable End-to-end Autonomous Driving via Large Language Modelcited by 461
  11. 2023NuScenes-QA: A Multi-modal Visual Question Answering Benchmark for Autonomous Driving Scenariocited by 262
  12. 2023Vision Language Models in Autonomous Driving: A Survey and Outlookcited by 126
14 more
  1. 2025Are VLMs Ready for Autonomous Driving? An Empirical Study from the Reliability, Data, and Metric Perspectivescited by 122
  2. 2020TartanVO: A Generalizable Learning-based VOcited by 108
  3. 2025Cosmos-Transfer1: Conditional World Generation with Adaptive Multimodal Controlcited by 106
  4. 2024Towards learning-based planning:The nuPlan benchmark for real-world autonomous drivingcited by 104
  5. 2025A Survey on Vision-Language-Action Models for Autonomous Drivingcited by 72
  6. 2025Spatial Reasoning with Vision-Language Models in Ego-Centric Multi-View Scenescited by 63
  7. 2025Impromptu VLA: Open Weights and Open Data for Driving Vision-Language-Action Modelscited by 60
  8. 2024RoboTron-Drive: All-in-One Large Multimodal Model for Autonomous Drivingcited by 30
  9. 2025QuantiPhy: A Quantitative Benchmark Evaluating Physical Reasoning Abilities of Vision-Language Modelscited by 20
  10. 2020Multilayer Graph-Based Trajectory Planning for Race Vehicles in Dynamic Scenarioscited by 14
  11. 2024FRENETIX: A High-Performance and Modular Motion Planning Framework for Autonomous Drivingcited by 14
  12. 2025EgoTraj-Bench: Towards Robust Trajectory Prediction Under Ego-view Noisy Observationscited by 6
  13. 2026StyleVLA: Driving Style-Aware Vision Language Action Model for Autonomous Drivingcited by 6
  14. 2026RADAR: Benchmarking Vision-Language-Action Generalization via Real-World Dynamics, Spatial-Physical Intelligence, and Autonomous Evaluationcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Speed in the Blind Spot: An Interpretability Analysis of Dynamic Perception in VLMs for Autonomous Driving
  2. 2026Qwen-Drive-1.0: An Initial Step towards a Vision-Language Foundation Model for Autonomous Driving
  3. 2025LightEMMA: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Vision-Language Models for Autonomous Driving
  4. 2026Drive-P2D: A Progressive Perception-to-Decision Benchmark for VLMs in Autonomous Driving
  5. 2024On-Board Vision-Language Models for Personalized Autonomous Vehicle Motion Control: System Design and Real-World Validation
  6. 2025From Segments to Scenes: Temporal Understanding for Agentic Autonomous Driving via Vision-Language Models
  7. 2026NaviDriveVLM: Decoupling High-Level Reasoning and Motion Planning for Autonomous Driving
  8. 2026Probing the Reliability of Driving VLMs: From Inconsistent Responses to Grounded Temporal Reasoning