Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.01581

Evaluating Physical Consistency and Plausibility in Generative Scenario Models for Autonomous Driving

Abstract

Generative AI models are increasingly used for scenario generation in autonomous driving. While they can generate realistic-looking scenarios, they often provide limited transparency into learned representations and consistency with real-world vehicle dynamics. This lack of formal assurance limits their use in safety-critical validation and certification workflows. To address this aspect, we introduce a layered evaluation protocol that complements existing methods by assessing models across five layers. The first four layers inspect internal representations and network layers through kinematic alignment, statistical baseline comparison, latent controllability, and activation analysis. The fifth layer evaluates model outputs against vehicle dynamics constraints such as lateral jerk thresholds. We demonstrate the protocol on a Variational Autoencoder (VAE)-based scenario generator. Although standard output-level metrics and visualizations suggest that the generated scenarios are realistic, our protocol provides deeper insight into the extent to which the model's latent space aligns with kinematic features and whether visually plausible trajectories satisfy vehicle-dynamics constraints. We further apply the protocol to additional generative models, demonstrating its applicability beyond the VAE architecture.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Manasa Mariam Mammen, Zafer Kayatas, Stefan Wagner. 2026-10-01. Evaluating Physical Consistency and Plausibility in Generative Scenario Models for Autonomous Driving. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01581

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Reducing Cognitive Overhead in Tool Use via Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Recent advances in multi-agent systems highlight the potential of specialized small agents that collaborate via division of labor. Existing tool-integrated reasoning systems, however, often follow a single-agent paradigm in which one large model interleaves long-horizon reasoning with precise tool operations, leading to cognitive-load interference and unstable coordination. We present MSARL, a Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning framework that explicitly decouples reasoning from tool use. In MSARL, a Reasoning Agent decomposes problems and plans tool invocations, while multiple Tool Agents specialize in specific external tools, each trained via a combination of imitation learning and reinforcement learning with role-specific rewards. On mathematical problem solving with code execution, MSARL significantly improves reasoning stability and final-answer accuracy over single-agent baselines. Moreover, the architecture generalizes to diverse tool-use tasks, demonstrating that cognitive-role decoupling with small agents is a scalable blueprint for multi-agent AI design.

cs.AI↗

LLM-based Agentic Reasoning Frameworks: A Survey from Methods to Scenarios

Recent advances in LLM-based agents highlight the importance of their reasoning frameworks, which guide the problem-solving process in diverse ways. This survey introduces a unified formal language to systematically categorize these frameworks at three compositional levels: single-agent, tool-based, and multi-agent methods. Following our taxonomy, we review key application scenarios across scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, society, economics, and general-purpose tasks. It also compares the distinct features and evaluation strategies of each category. Through our taxonomy and comparisons, our survey explores the designs and strengths of LLM-based agentic frameworks in different scenarios, reviewing the fast-paced development of complex agentic systems in the real world.

cs.AI↗

Moloch's Bargain: Emergent Misalignment When LLMs Compete for Audiences

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how information is created and disseminated, from companies using them to craft persuasive advertisements, to election campaigns optimizing messaging to gain votes, to social media influencers boosting engagement. These settings are inherently competitive, with sellers, candidates, and influencers vying for audience approval, yet it remains poorly understood how competitive feedback loops influence LLM behavior. We show that optimizing LLMs for competitive success can inadvertently drive misalignment. Using simulated environments across these scenarios, we find that, 6.3% increase in sales is accompanied by a 14.0% rise in deceptive marketing; in elections, a 4.9% gain in vote share coincides with 22.3% more disinformation and 12.5% more populist rhetoric; and on social media, a 7.5% engagement boost comes with 188.6% more disinformation and a 16.3% increase in promotion of harmful behaviors. We call this phenomenon Moloch's Bargain for AI--competitive success achieved at the cost of alignment. These misaligned behaviors emerge even when models are explicitly instructed to remain truthful and grounded, revealing the fragility of current alignment safeguards. Our findings highlight how market-driven optimization pressures can systematically erode alignment, creating a race to the bottom, and suggest that safe deployment of AI systems will require stronger governance and carefully designed incentives to prevent competitive dynamics from undermining societal trust.

cs.AI↗