Language2Drive：自動運転におけるVision-Language-Actionモデルは本当に指示に従うのか？
Language2Drive: Do Vision-Language-Action Models Really Follow the Instructions in Autonomous Driving?
自動運転VLAモデルが自然言語指示に従って運転行動を変えられるかを検証するベンチマークLanguage2Driveを提案し、運転能力は高い一方で言語による行動制御が著しく弱いことを示した。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの？
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい？
3. 技術・手法の肝は？
4. どうやって有効だと検証した？
5. 議論はある？
6. 次に読むべき論文は？
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Zihan You, Zehua Fan, Wenqi Lyu, Aoqi Wang, Ni Wang, Yifei Yang, Linge Zhao, Huan Li, Sining Ang, Yuguang Yang, Jueyu Chen, Xiangyu Li, Qianshan Wei, Jieyuan Pei, Yuxin Wang, Zhiwen Chen, Jiaqi Li, Wenxuan Song, Yanyuan Qiao, Benjin Zhu, Haoang Li, Yan Wang
分類: cs.RO, cs.CV
原文アブストラクト
Recent Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models increasingly use natural-language instructions to condition autonomous driving behavior. Yet existing closed-loop benchmarks primarily measure route completion, safety, and rule compliance, leaving a fundamental question unresolved: does language actually determine which feasible behavior the vehicle executes? A trajectory may be safe and successful while still violating or even ignoring the passenger's instruction. To address this, we introduce \ltd, a benchmark designed to directly test this capability. Its key evaluation unit, the paired counterfactual unit (PCU), holds the initial driving scene fixed while changing only the instruction. This design enables us to distinguish isolated instruction success from counterfactual paired success across four instruction-following scopes. To test whether this distinction persists across evaluation regimes, we instantiate Language2Drive in complementary closed-loop CARLA simulation, reconstructed real-world scenes, and open-loop driving benchmarks, including our released CARLA-Language2Drive simulator with purpose-built maps. Evaluating representative driving VLAs across these settings reveals a striking mismatch between strong driving competence and weak language control: 93.2% of successful rollouts do not have a successful counterpart under the alternative feasible instruction. This failure is dominated by one-sided completion, where a model repeatedly executes one preferred behavior but fails when the same scene requires the counterfactual alternative. These results expose two fundamental limitations of current evaluation: isolated success and driving scores, which are widely used by conventional driving benchmarks, can substantially overstate language-following capability, while current driving VLAs themselves lack reliable instruction following under matched counterfactual tests.
