Evaluates cooperative autonomous driving planning capabilities using a multimodal LLM with graph-of-thoughts reasoning. It measures trajectory prediction accuracy and collision avoidance under occlusion-aware perception and planning-aware prediction scenarios. Use when the user wants to benchmark on V2V-GoT-QA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports L2 error.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill v2v-got-planning-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of V2v Got Planning Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-v2v-got-planning-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: v2v-got-planning-eval
description: Evaluates cooperative autonomous driving planning capabilities using a multimodal LLM with graph-of-thoughts reasoning. It measures trajectory prediction accuracy and collision avoidance under occlusion-aware perception and planning-aware prediction scenarios. Use when the user wants to benchmark on V2V-GoT-QA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports L2 error.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2509.18053
bibtex_key: chiu2025v2vgot
confidence: medium
---
# v2v-got-planning-eval
> V2V-GoT: Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Autonomous Driving with Multimodal Large Language Models and Graph-of-Thoughts — Chiu et al. (2025) (arXiv:2509.18053, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates cooperative autonomous driving planning capabilities using a multimodal LLM with graph-of-thoughts reasoning. It measures trajectory prediction accuracy and collision avoidance under occlusion-aware perception and planning-aware prediction scenarios.
## Datasets
- **V2V-GoT-QA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `L2 error` **(primary)** — range: other
- Mean Euclidean distance between predicted and ground-truth trajectory points over the full planning horizon.
- `collision rate` — range: percent
- Percentage of test samples or simulation steps where a collision occurs between vehicles.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multimodal perception features from current and previous timesteps, shared planning data, and structured query-answer prompts within a graph-of-thoughts framework.
**Output**: Final planning answer (trajectory) generated by the MLLM after graph-of-thoughts reasoning.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, ground_truth):
l2_errors = []
collisions = 0
for pred, gt in zip(predictions, ground_truth):
l2_errors.append(np.mean(np.linalg.norm(pred - gt, axis=1)))
if check_collision(pred):
collisions += 1
l2_error = np.mean(l2_errors)
collision_rate = (collisions / len(predictions)) * 100
return l2_error, collision_rate
```
## Common pitfalls
- L2 error is averaged over the entire planning horizon, not just the immediate next step.
- Collision rate is reported as a percentage (CR(%)), requiring careful normalization against total test samples.
- The evaluation assumes shared perception features across timesteps, so temporal alignment of inputs is critical.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table I shows the testing performance of V2V-GoT in the planning task of V2V-GoT-QA in comparison with baseline methods. Our newly proposed V2V-GoT is seen to achieve the best final planning performance with the lowest L2 errors and collision rates compared to all baselines with different fusion approaches.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chiu2025v2vgot,
title={V2V-GoT: Vehicle-to-Vehicle Cooperative Autonomous Driving with Multimodal Large Language Models and Graph-of-Thoughts},
author={Chiu et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2509.18053}
}
```
- arXiv: 2509.18053
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!