arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2511.12751cs.LGcs.AIcs.RO
收藏

大语言模型是未来的方向吗?基于LLM引导的强化学习在分布式自动驾驶中的案例研究

Are LLMs The Way Forward? A Case Study on LLM-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Decentralized Autonomous Driving

Timur Anvar, Jeffrey Chen, Yuyan Wang, Rohan Chandra

AI总结:

针对RL在自动驾驶中依赖明确奖励函数的局限,本研究通过案例对比仅RL、仅LLM和混合方法,发现小型LLM引导的RL混合方法虽表现介于两者之间,但存在系统性保守偏差,为LLM在自动驾驶中的应用提供参考。

摘要:

自动驾驶车辆在复杂环境(如密集快速的高速公路和汇流场景)中的导航仍是活跃的研究领域。强化学习(RL)的一个关键局限是依赖于明确指定的奖励函数,而这些函数往往无法捕捉多样化、分布外场景的全部语义和社会复杂性。因此,由于大语言模型(LLMs)具备对丰富语义上下文进行推理的能力,越来越多的研究探索使用LLMs替代或补充RL以实现直接规划和控制。然而,LLMs存在显著缺点:在零样本安全关键场景中可能不稳定,产生不一致的输出,且通常依赖昂贵的API调用并存在网络延迟。这促使我们研究小型本地部署的LLMs(参数<14B)是否能通过奖励塑形而非直接控制,为自主高速公路驾驶提供有意义的支持。我们开展了案例研究,比较仅RL、仅LLM和混合方法——LLM在训练期间通过对状态-动作转换评分来增强RL奖励,而测试时执行标准RL策略。研究结果显示:仅RL智能体达到中等成功率(73-89%)且效率合理;仅LLM智能体可达到更高成功率(最高94%)但速度性能严重下降;混合方法的表现始终介于两者之间。关键的是,尽管有明确的效率指令,受LLM影响的方法仍表现出系统性保守偏差,且存在显著的模型依赖性变异性,这凸显了当前小型LLMs在安全关键控制任务中的重要局限。

英文摘要:

Autonomous vehicle navigation in complex environments such as dense and fast-moving highways and merging scenarios remains an active area of research. A key limitation of RL is its reliance on well-specified reward functions, which often fail to capture the full semantic and social complexity of diverse, out-of-distribution situations. As a result, a rapidly growing line of research explores using Large Language Models (LLMs) to replace or supplement RL for direct planning and control, on account of their ability to reason about rich semantic context. However, LLMs present significant drawbacks: they can be unstable in zero-shot safety-critical settings, produce inconsistent outputs, and often depend on expensive API calls with network latency. This motivates our investigation into whether small, locally deployed LLMs (< 14B parameters) can meaningfully support autonomous highway driving through reward shaping rather than direct control. We present a case study comparing RL-only, LLM-only, and hybrid approaches, where LLMs augment RL rewards by scoring state-action transitions during training, while standard RL policies execute at test time. Our findings reveal that RL-only agents achieve moderate success rates (73-89%) with reasonable efficiency, LLM-only agents can reach higher success rates (up to 94%) but with severely degraded speed performance, and hybrid approaches consistently fall between these extremes. Critically, despite explicit efficiency instructions, LLM-influenced approaches exhibit systematic conservative bias with substantial model-dependent variability, highlighting important limitations of current small LLMs for safety-critical control tasks.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑