AI Navigate

Probing the Reliability of Driving VLMs: From Inconsistent Responses to Grounded Temporal Reasoning

arXiv cs.CV / 3/11/2026

Ideas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • This work evaluates the reliability of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) used as driving assistants, specifically examining their ability to provide consistent and temporally grounded responses based on observed information.
  • The study identifies two key challenges hindering VLM reliability: inconsistency in responses caused by minor input changes and limited temporal reasoning which results in failure to correctly predict or align sequential events.
  • The research reveals that even models with strong visual understanding often rely heavily on memorized training patterns rather than true temporal reasoning, impacting decision-making accuracy.
  • To better assess VLMs’ ability to reason about future scenes, the authors introduce FutureVQA, a human-annotated dataset, and propose a self-supervised fine-tuning approach with chain-of-thought reasoning that enhances both consistency and temporal reasoning without needing explicit temporal supervision.
  • This work provides critical insights into the limitations of current VLMs for autonomous driving tasks and offers practical methods to improve their temporal reasoning capabilities, potentially advancing reliable driving assistance technologies.

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

arXiv:2603.09512 (cs)
[Submitted on 10 Mar 2026]

Title:Probing the Reliability of Driving VLMs: From Inconsistent Responses to Grounded Temporal Reasoning

View a PDF of the paper titled Probing the Reliability of Driving VLMs: From Inconsistent Responses to Grounded Temporal Reasoning, by Chun-Peng Chang and 3 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:A reliable driving assistant should provide consistent responses based on temporally grounded reasoning derived from observed information. In this work, we investigate whether Vision-Language Models (VLMs), when applied as driving assistants, can response consistantly and understand how present observations shape future outcomes, or whether their outputs merely reflect patterns memorized during training without temporally grounded reasoning. While recent efforts have integrated VLMs into autonomous driving, prior studies typically emphasize scene understanding and instruction generation, implicitly assuming that strong visual interpretation naturally enables consistant future reasoning and thus ensures reliable decision-making, a claim we critically examine. We focus on two major challenges limiting VLM reliability in this setting: response inconsistency, where minor input perturbations yield different answers or, in some cases, responses degenerate toward near-random guessing, and limited temporal reasoning, in which models fail to reason and align sequential events from current observations, often resulting in incorrect or even contradictory responses. Moreover, we find that models with strong visual understanding do not necessarily perform best on tasks requiring temporal reasoning, indicating a tendency to over-rely on pretrained patterns rather than modeling temporal dynamics. To address these issues, we adopt existing evaluation methods and introduce FutureVQA, a human-annotated benchmark dataset specifically designed to assess future scene reasoning. In addition, we propose a simple yet effective self-supervised tuning approach with chain-of-thought reasoning that improves both consistency and temporal reasoning without requiring temporal labels.
Subjects: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.09512 [cs.CV]
  (or arXiv:2603.09512v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.09512
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Chun-Peng Chang [view email]
[v1] Tue, 10 Mar 2026 11:12:28 UTC (10,134 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Probing the Reliability of Driving VLMs: From Inconsistent Responses to Grounded Temporal Reasoning, by Chun-Peng Chang and 3 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source
Current browse context:
cs.CV
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Links to Code Toggle
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.