Hidden Biases of End-to-End Driving Models
About
End-to-end driving systems have recently made rapid progress, in particular on CARLA. Independent of their major contribution, they introduce changes to minor system components. Consequently, the source of improvements is unclear. We identify two biases that recur in nearly all state-of-the-art methods and are critical for the observed progress on CARLA: (1) lateral recovery via a strong inductive bias towards target point following, and (2) longitudinal averaging of multimodal waypoint predictions for slowing down. We investigate the drawbacks of these biases and identify principled alternatives. By incorporating our insights, we develop TF++, a simple end-to-end method that ranks first on the Longest6 and LAV benchmarks, gaining 11 driving score over the best prior work on Longest6.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Closed-loop Autonomous Driving | Bench2Drive | Driving Score (DS)84.21 | 49 | |
| Autonomous Driving | Bench2Drive | Merging Score62.5 | 31 | |
| End-to-end Autonomous Driving | Bench2Drive | Driving Score70.55 | 31 | |
| End-to-end Driving | LangAuto Short | DS64.8 | 21 | |
| End-to-end Driving | LangAuto Tiny | DS75.3 | 21 | |
| Closed-loop Planning | CARLA Bench2Drive (leaderboard) | Driving Score (DS)84.21 | 17 | |
| End-to-end Autonomous Driving | Bench2Drive v1.0 (Full-data) | Driving Score84.21 | 14 | |
| Autonomous Driving | CARLA Leaderboard 2.0 (official leaderboard) | Driving Score5.56 | 13 | |
| Autonomous Driving | CARLA Leaderboard v1 (test) | Driving Score66 | 11 | |
| Autonomous Driving | Longest6 (train towns) | DS69 | 9 |