Daily Papers

Although Cooperative Driving Automation (CDA) has attracted considerable attention in recent years, there remain numerous open challenges in this field. The gap between existing simulation platforms that mainly concentrate on single-vehicle intelligence and CDA development is one of the critical barriers, as it inhibits researchers from validating and comparing different CDA algorithms conveniently. To this end, we propose OpenCDA, a generalized framework and tool for developing and testing CDA systems. Specifically, OpenCDA is composed of three major components: a co-simulation platform with simulators of different purposes and resolutions, a full-stack cooperative driving system, and a scenario manager. Through the interactions of these three components, our framework offers a straightforward way for researchers to test different CDA algorithms at both levels of traffic and individual autonomy. More importantly, OpenCDA is highly modularized and installed with benchmark algorithms and test cases. Users can conveniently replace any default module with customized algorithms and use other default modules of the CDA platform to perform evaluations of the effectiveness of new functionalities in enhancing the overall CDA performance. An example of platooning implementation is used to illustrate the framework's capability for CDA research. The codes of OpenCDA are available in the https://github.com/ucla-mobility/OpenCDA.

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from conversational assistants into autonomous agents, evaluating the safety of their actions becomes critical. Prior safety benchmarks have primarily focused on preventing generation of harmful content, such as toxic text. However, they overlook the challenge of agents taking harmful actions when the most effective path to an operational goal conflicts with human safety. To address this gap, we introduce ManagerBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLM decision-making in realistic, human-validated managerial scenarios. Each scenario forces a choice between a pragmatic but harmful action that achieves an operational goal, and a safe action that leads to worse operational performance. A parallel control set, where potential harm is directed only at inanimate objects, measures a model's pragmatism and identifies its tendency to be overly safe. Our findings indicate that the frontier LLMs perform poorly when navigating this safety-pragmatism trade-off. Many consistently choose harmful options to advance their operational goals, while others avoid harm only to become overly safe and ineffective. Critically, we find this misalignment does not stem from an inability to perceive harm, as models' harm assessments align with human judgments, but from flawed prioritization. ManagerBench is a challenging benchmark for a core component of agentic behavior: making safe choices when operational goals and alignment values incentivize conflicting actions. Benchmark & code available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/ManagerBench.