mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Shared Rollouts Fail in Defensive Driving Evaluation: A NAVSIM Score Basis Audit

arXiv 2608.04896 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2026cs.AI cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Defensive driving scores are useful only when they preserve distinctions between policies that observe surrounding actors and those that do not. Re-simulation benchmarks may use reference-conditioned forgiveness, under which an agent receives credit when the logged human reference fails a compliance channel. When agent and reference share an unstable rollout transformation, this rule can propagate shared reference failures into broad compliance credit. We audit this risk in NAVSIM v2.2 original scene single-stage scoring. Under the affected documented-stack condition on the audited numerical backend, the route-blind Ignore-All probe and a route-aware actor-blind probe outrank human replay and PDM-Closed over the complete 12,146-token navtest split. A fresh installation following the public specification reproduces rollout divergence on a fixed 32-token diagnostic set. A same-source dependency stack control and an exact-input diagnostic isolate dependency-sensitive numerical behavior in the shared velocity refit. On a 450-token control pool, replacing only the solver eliminates rollout divergence and restores blind-last ordering while keeping forgiveness enabled. Thus, the numerical instability is the direct trigger. Reference-conditioned forgiveness propagates the resulting shared reference failures into compliance credit. We contribute an audit protocol requiring score basis and stack disclosure, blind probes, overwrite reporting, and rollout stability tests before using such scores for defensive driving claims.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 33 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

Builds on

33 of 37 references.

References · 33

  1. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  2. 2022Planning-oriented Autonomous Drivingcited by 1,068
  3. 2020Lift, Splat, Shoot: Encoding Images From Arbitrary Camera Rigs by Implicitly Unprojecting to 3Dcited by 1,040
  4. 2023VAD: Vectorized Scene Representation for Efficient Autonomous Drivingcited by 613
  5. 2023DriveLM: Driving with Graph Visual Question Answeringcited by 527
  6. 2021NuPlan: A closed-loop ML-based planning benchmark for autonomous vehiclescited by 485
  7. 2017End-to-end Driving via Conditional Imitation Learningcited by 479
  8. 2022TransFuser: Imitation with Transformer-Based Sensor Fusion for Autonomous Drivingcited by 477
  9. 2020Learning Invariant Representations for Reinforcement Learning without Reconstructioncited by 424
  10. 2021Multi-Modal Fusion Transformer for End-to-End Autonomous Drivingcited by 372
  11. 2019Learning by Cheatingcited by 361
  12. 2024NAVSIM: Data-Driven Non-Reactive Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Benchmarkingcited by 343
21 more
  1. 2024DiffusionDrive: Truncated Diffusion Model for End-to-End Autonomous Drivingcited by 324
  2. 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 312
  3. 2021Unsolved Problems in ML Safetycited by 291
  4. 2022Trajectory-guided Control Prediction for End-to-end Autonomous Driving: A Simple yet Strong Baselinecited by 247
  5. 2024Hydra-MDP: End-to-end Multimodal Planning with Multi-target Hydra-Distillationcited by 244
  6. 2023Is Ego Status All You Need for Open-Loop End-to-End Autonomous Driving?cited by 242
  7. 2023Parting with Misconceptions about Learning-based Vehicle Motion Planningcited by 238
  8. 2019INTERACTION Dataset: An INTERnational, Adversarial and Cooperative moTION Dataset in Interactive Driving Scenarios with Semantic Mapscited by 231
  9. 2024EMMA: End-to-End Multimodal Model for Autonomous Drivingcited by 226
  10. 2021MP3: A Unified Model to Map, Perceive, Predict and Plancited by 211
  11. 2022Safety-Enhanced Autonomous Driving Using Interpretable Sensor Fusion Transformercited by 211
  12. 2023Rethinking the Open-Loop Evaluation of End-to-End Autonomous Driving in nuScenescited by 191
  13. 2025Pseudo-Simulation for Autonomous Drivingcited by 141
  14. 2022Learning from All Vehiclescited by 135
  15. 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 132
  16. 2021Learning to drive from a world on railscited by 114
  17. 2022PlanT: Explainable Planning Transformers via Object-Level Representationscited by 105
  18. 2023Hidden Biases of End-to-End Driving Modelscited by 95
  19. 2020The Value Equivalence Principle for Model-Based Reinforcement Learningcited by 88
  20. 2025LEAD: Minimizing Learner-Expert Asymmetry in End-to-End Drivingcited by 22
  21. 2026Do Open-Loop Metrics Predict Closed-Loop Driving? A Cross-Benchmark Correlation Study of NAVSIM and Bench2Drivecited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.