PlannerForge:自动驾驶运动规划测试的LLM智能体框架
PlannerForge: LLM Agents for Scenario-Based Testing of Motion Planners in Autonomous Driving
PlannerForge用LLM智能体整合了自动驾驶测试全流程,开源模型表现接近商业API,成本调优将规划成功率提升20%。
PlannerForge是一个统一的LLM智能体框架,覆盖自动驾驶场景测试全流程,包括场景生成、选择、修改、模块路由、规划器测试和增强。研究评估了10个现成LLM在5种提示条件下的表现,最佳任务得分为0.88-1.00。开源模型Qwen3.6:35B在五项任务中三项表现匹敌商业API。端到端模块链保留了83%/78%的种子查询(商业/开源)。
PlannerForge: LLM Agents for Scenario-Based Testing of Motion Planners in Autonomous Driving
Ensuring the safety of autonomous driving is a critical challenge. Scenario-based testing is a systematic process used to validate Autonomous Driving Systems (ADSs), but it remains a fragmented modular pipeline in which scenario generation, retrieval, modification, ADS execution, and results analysis are performed by separate tools with little interaction. Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise across ADS sub-systems such as perception, planning, and control. However, no prior work covers the whole scenario-based testing pipeline for ADSs with a unified LLM-agent framework. We present PlannerForge, an LLM-agent framework that extends all scenario-based testing stages (from Scenario Generation to ADS Assessment) and adds two further LLM-enhanced stages: ADS Enhancement and ADS Benchmarking. We evaluate PlannerForge with 10 off-the-shelf LLMs across all tasks (Generation, Selection, Modification, Module Routing, Planner Testing, and Enhancement) under 5 prompt conditions. Best-per-task scores range from 0.88 to 1.00, and open-source 20-35B backends match commercial APIs on most tasks. Open-source models such as Qwen3.6:35B match commercial APIs on three of the five tasks. Chaining the modules end-to-end retains 83% / 78% of seed queries (commercial / open). It outperforms Scenario Factory 2.0 (Finkeldei et al., 2025) on natural-language generation (193 vs. 144 executable of 200) and realises 92-96% of requested city, road and vehicle attributes. It outperforms BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) at rank 1 selection (92.0% vs. 67.5%) and From-Words-to-Collisions (Gao et al., 2025) on physically valid edits (>=94% vs. 31%). At N=400, cost-tuning lifts planner success from 50.4% to 70.2% and cuts collisions from 19.0% to 8.4%, without domain-specific fine-tuning.