Nov 2025· IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology· Vol 7, pp. 2542-2558· 16 citations· 24 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
UAVBench establishes a reproducible, physically grounded foundation for benchmarking agentic AI in autonomous aerial systems and advancing next-generation UAV reasoning intelligence, and presents UAVBench_MCQ, a reasoning-oriented extension containing 50,000 multiple-choice questions spanning ten cognitive and ethical reasoning styles.
Abstract
Autonomous aerial systems increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) for mission planning, perception, and decision-making; yet, the lack of standardized, physically grounded benchmarks limits systematic evaluation of their reasoning capabilities. To address this gap, we introduce UAVBench, an open benchmark dataset comprising 50,000 validated UAV flight scenarios generated through taxonomy-guided LLM prompting and multi-stage safety validation. Each scenario is encoded in a structured JSON schema encompassing mission objectives, vehicle configuration, environmental conditions, and quantitative risk labels, providing a unified representation of UAV operations across diverse domains. Building on this foundation, we present UAVBench_MCQ, a reasoning-oriented extension containing 50,000 multiple-choice questions spanning ten cognitive and ethical reasoning styles—from aerodynamics and navigation to multi-agent coordination and hybrid integrated reasoning. This framework enables interpretable, machine-checkable assessment of UAV-specific cognition under realistic operational contexts. We evaluate 32 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5, ChatGPT 4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek V3, Qwen3 235B, and ERNIE 4.5 300B, and find strong performance in perception and policy reasoning but persistent challenges in ethics-aware and resource-constrained decision-making. UAVBench establishes a reproducible, physically grounded foundation for benchmarking agentic AI in autonomous aerial systems and advancing next-generation UAV reasoning intelligence.
UAV-MAS is proposed, a training-free multi-agent system for MLLM-based UAV aerial image understanding and reasoning, comprising a Domain-Specific Perception Engine that routes queries to task-appropriate visual tools, a Context-Aware Iterative Refinement module (CAIR) that validates intermediate reasoning to curb error...
Hao-Yu Zhang, Shuoxun Zhang, Peng Ye et al.· 0 citations
This survey reviews the technical evolution, system architectures, and deployment challenges of LLM-driven UAVs across perception, planning, control, multi-agent coordination, and edge–cloud computing, and separates semantic-reasoning latency, control timing, power, task outcomes, hardware, and validation settings to a...
Mei-Jie Zhang, Hao Wang· Intelligence & Control· 0 citations
Deployable autonomy remains a key challenge for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in open-ended missions. Large language models (LLMs) and their multimodal variants, which can process visual and other sensory inputs, have introduced new capabilities for semantic perception, task reasoning, and language-conditio...
Ting-Quan Xiong, Jianning Zhan, Qiu-Wei Deng et al.· Drones· 1 citation
The PhysAI-Bench is introduced, a benchmark for evaluating the agentic decision-making required for reliable autonomy in Physical AI, which contains 10,178 standardized decision instances automatically extracted from conversational traces of autonomous UAV missions.
M. Ferrag, Mérouane Debbah, Abderrahmane Lakas et al.· 0 citations
The current integration of large language models (LLMs) with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) offers a promising approach to more accessible UAV task control. However, existing methods utilise LLMs as one-shot planners, which are vulnerable to changes in vehicle state and dynamic operating conditions. This paper introdu...
Jack Morgan, Zhuang-Kun Wei, Hong-Jian Sun· International Conference on...· 0 citations
LAPF is the only evaluated approach that couples every detected hazard to a bounded, metric-neutral corrective action while maintaining near-goal stability, with zero clamp events in both scenarios, whereas CoT prompting increases from 9.7 to 14.0 events.
Yousef Emami, MohammadHossein Homaei, Hao Zhou et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.