When the Score Becomes the Target: Rethinking Metric Validity in Autonomous Driving
On the map: End-to-end autonomous driving → End-to-end system architecture also fits: Imitation-learning end-to-end planners
Abstract (arXiv)
Driving benchmark scores are increasingly used not only for evaluation but also as optimization targets. This raises a fundamental question: do score gains remain reliable evidence of driving improvement once the score itself is optimized? We address this question by examining how the scoring process responds to changes in driving behavior and whether the resulting gains persist under repeated execution and replanning. We decompose the process into execution, measurement, subscore mapping, and aggregation. Controlled interventions reveal substantial behavioral changes that receive little score response because distinctions are omitted, thresholded, or attenuated between requested and executed motion. Closed-loop comparisons further show that optimization gains can reverse when the execution interface changes, demonstrating their dependence on how requests are executed and returned as feedback. Together, these findings connect the behavioral distinctions preserved by a metric to the conditions under which its gains transfer. Metric validity under optimization therefore requires examining both what the scoring process measures and how the optimized behavior is executed.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in End-to-end system architecture, one of 9 directions in End-to-end autonomous driving. Builds on 19 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.
Builds on
19 of 22 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Do Open-Loop Metrics Predict Closed-Loop Driving? A Cross-Benchmark Correlation Study of NAVSIM and Bench2Drive30 Apr
- 2024NAVSIM: Data-Driven Non-Reactive Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Benchmarking21 Jun
- 2024Bench2Drive: Towards Multi-Ability Benchmarking of Closed-Loop End-To-End Autonomous Driving6 Jun
- 2023Rethinking the Open-Loop Evaluation of End-to-End Autonomous Driving in nuScenes17 May
- 2021NuPlan: A closed-loop ML-based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles22 Jun
Other references · 14
- 2024DiffusionDrive: Truncated Diffusion Model for End-to-End Autonomous Drivingcited by 324
- 2023Parting with Misconceptions about Learning-based Vehicle Motion Planningcited by 238
- 2025ReCogDrive: A Reinforced Cognitive Framework for End-to-End Autonomous Drivingcited by 190
- 2025Pseudo-Simulation for Autonomous Drivingcited by 141
- 2025Diffusion-Based Planning for Autonomous Driving with Flexible Guidancecited by 138
- 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 132
- 2024HUGSIM: A Real-Time, Photo-Realistic and Closed-Loop Simulator for Autonomous Drivingcited by 84
- 2025Generalized Trajectory Scoring for End-to-end Multimodal Planningcited by 63
- 2025DiffusionDriveV2: Reinforcement Learning-Constrained Truncated Diffusion Modeling in End-to-End Autonomous Drivingcited by 52
- 2023Goodhart's Law in Reinforcement Learningcited by 37
- 2025Plan-R1: Safe and Feasible Trajectory Planning as Language Modelingcited by 19
- 2026NoRD: A Data-Efficient Vision-Language-Action Model that Drives without Reasoningcited by 15
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026DriveJudge: Rethinking Autonomous Driving Evaluation with Vision-Language Models
- 2026What Probing Reveals about Autonomous Driving: Linking Internal Prediction Errors to Ego Planning
- 2021Reward (Mis)design for Autonomous Driving
- 2026SparseDriveV2: Scoring is All You Need for End-to-End Autonomous Driving
- 2026BridgeSim: Unveiling the OL-CL Gap in End-to-End Autonomous Driving
- 2025A Framework for Learning Scoring Rules in Autonomous Driving Planning Systems
- 2025Scalable Offline Metrics for Autonomous Driving
- 2026Effort-Based Criticality Metrics for Evaluating 3D Perception Errors in Autonomous Driving