Benchmark Almanac

DriveBench

Not in model cards

Vision-language models answer 20,498 questions about 19,200 driving frames, covering perception, prediction, planning and behavior. Inputs come in 17 settings: clean images, corrupted images and text only. The test checks whether answers rest on the image or on general knowledge.

ICCV 2025. The authors find that models often give plausible driving answers even when the image is degraded or missing. About 250 GitHub stars and 25 HF paper upvotes. The paper tests 12 VLMs.

Released
January 2025
Kind
Embodied reasoning
Level
Everyday
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public

In the authors’ words

Recent advancements in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have sparked interest in their use for autonomous driving, particularly in generating interpretable driving decisions through natural language. However, the assumption that VLMs inherently provide visually grounded, reliable, and interpretable explanations for driving remains largely unexamined. To address this gap, we introduce DriveBench, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate VLM reliability across 17 settings (clean, corrupted, and text-only inputs), encompassing 19,200 frames, 20,498 question-answer pairs, three question types, four mainstream driving tasks, and a total of 12 popular VLMs. Our findings reveal that VLMs often generate plausible responses derived from general knowledge or textual cues rather than true visual grounding, especially under degraded or missing visual inputs. This behavior, concealed by dataset imbalances and insufficient evaluation metrics, poses significant risks in safety-critical scenarios like autonomous driving. We further observe that VLMs struggle with multi-modal reasoning and display heightened sensitivity to input corruptions, leading to inconsistencies in performance. To address these challenges, we propose refined evaluation metrics that prioritize robust visual grounding and multi-modal understanding. Additionally, we highlight the potential of leveraging VLMs' awareness of corruptions to enhance their reliability, offering a roadmap for developing more trustworthy and interpretable decision-making systems in real-world autonomous driving contexts. The benchmark toolkit is publicly accessible.

Abstract of Are VLMs Ready for Autonomous Driving? An Empirical Study from the Reliability, Data, and Metric Perspectives (arXiv:2501.04003, CC0)

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for DriveBench yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Robotics

All 103 in Robotics
  • ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
  • RoboDojo In use Generalist manipulation policies run 42 Isaac Sim tasks and 18 remote real-robot tasks. Scored by task score and success rate. GPT-6 Astra 29%
  • RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. FLUX 3 Action 42.9%
  • Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
  • Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
  • Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds. Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%