arxiv: 2602.18757 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-21 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Driving with A Thousand Faces: A Benchmark for Closed-Loop Personalized End-to-End Autonomous Driving

Xiaoru Dong , Ruiqin Li , Xiao Han , Zhenxuan Wu , Jiamin Wang , Jian Chen , Qi Jiang , SM Yiu

show 2 more authors

Xinge Zhu Yuexin Ma

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 20:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV

keywords personalized autonomous drivingend-to-end learningdriving style metricssimulation benchmarkstyle reward modelmaximum mean discrepancyclosed-loop evaluationindividual behavior modeling

0 comments

The pith

Person2Drive supplies a simulation platform, style metrics, and reward-based adaptation to make end-to-end autonomous driving match individual human styles.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to solve the problem that most end-to-end autonomous driving systems produce only an average driving style while real human drivers differ markedly from one another. It does this by releasing a flexible simulation system that generates large-scale, style-labeled trajectory datasets, by defining quantitative style vectors scored with maximum mean discrepancy and KL divergence, and by training a style reward model that steers policy adaptation toward a chosen driver’s preferences. A reader would care because current one-size-fits-all models can feel unnatural or unsafe to many users; if the benchmark works, vehicles could instead reproduce safe versions of each person’s own habits. The authors report that the resulting models achieve measurable style alignment in closed-loop simulation while remaining within safety bounds.

Core claim

Person2Drive is a complete platform containing an open-source simulator for collecting diverse personalized driving trajectories, style-vector metrics based on maximum mean discrepancy and KL divergence that quantify how closely one driver’s behavior matches another, and an end-to-end adaptation framework that uses a learned style reward model to fine-tune driving policies so they reproduce an individual’s safe style. Experiments on the platform show that these components together support fine-grained style analysis, reproducible evaluation, and effective personalization of end-to-end autonomous driving models.

What carries the argument

Person2Drive platform: a simulation data-collection system that produces style-labeled trajectories, MMD/KL style metrics that turn trajectories into comparable vectors, and a style reward model that guides policy adaptation toward a target driver’s distribution.

If this is right

Driving policies can be pre-trained on large simulated style corpora and then quickly adapted to new users without collecting new real-world data for each person.
Quantitative style scores make it possible to compare and rank different personalization algorithms on the same reproducible test set.
The reward model provides an explicit training signal that trades off style fidelity against safety constraints inside the same optimization loop.
Because the data generator is open and configurable, researchers can systematically vary scenario difficulty while holding driver style fixed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If simulation-to-real style transfer holds, the same platform could serve as a pre-training environment before fine-tuning on limited real logs from a single driver.
The style-vector representation might be reused for other sequential control tasks that require matching an expert’s behavioral distribution, such as robotic manipulation.
Reproducible style benchmarks could eventually support regulatory evaluation of whether a vehicle respects a driver’s declared preference profile.
Extending the reward model to multi-agent traffic might allow personalized vehicles to coordinate safely with drivers of known styles.

Load-bearing premise

Simulated driving data must reproduce the statistical distributions of real individual human styles closely enough that the MMD/KL metrics and reward model produce safe, transferable personalization.

What would settle it

A model adapted on Person2Drive trajectories produces unsafe maneuvers or visibly mismatched style when tested on the same human drivers in real closed-loop driving.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18757 by Jiamin Wang, Jian Chen, Qi Jiang, Ruiqin Li, SM Yiu, Xiao Han, Xiaoru Dong, Xinge Zhu, Yuexin Ma, Zhenxuan Wu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Person2Drive framework. We develop a low-cost, scalable platform for data collection, featuring a navigation map and multi-camera views that mimic real-world driving habits, enabling authentic data acquisition across diverse scenarios, road segments, and driver styles. To achieve personalized driving style adaptation, we propose a three-stage adaptation method. Finally, the adapted end-to-end model is dep… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Style similarity evaluation results on the GT trajectories of StyleDrive dataset and Person2Drive dataset.(a) Results on the StyleDrive dataset. (b) Results on the Person2Drive dataset. 4.2 Reward Model-based Style Modeling We evaluate the proposed reward model-based style modeling framework on the StyleDrive dataset by comparing the style discrepancy metrics of the style vectors predicted by our reward mo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Style Modeling results on the Person2Drive dataset. We then also conduct a similar analysis on the Person2Drive dataset to verify the effect of our method. Specifically, we compare the ground-truth and rewardmodel outputs at both intraand inter-person levels to validate whether the reward model can effectively capture and represent driving styles across individuals. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Average style indices differences among all individuals. In this section, we analyze the effectiveness of the proposed style indices. Specifically, during the collection of the Person2Drive dataset, we record the corresponding potential style indicators. The measured differences across drivers for the top 20 most discriminative indicators are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of driving behaviors across different models, visualized from the vehicle’s first-person view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of post-stop following gaps across different models, visualized from the vehicle’s first-person view. 6 Conclusion In this work, we address the gap in achieving truly individual-level personalized E2E-AD. To this end, we develop an open-source and extensible data collection platform and construct Person2Drive. This large-scale personalized driving dataset enables fine-grained style analysis acr… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Human-in-the-loop data collection setup, including the Logitech G29 steering wheel and pedal set, and an example of a participant driving in CARLA using our system. Style-Driven Route Design. To effectively capture personalized driving behaviors, the route design should balance driving duration, scenario diversity, and experimental reproducibility. Existing CARLA-based datasets—such as Bench2Drive and CAR… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: illustrates the diversity of driver-specific behaviors across different contexts. In this figure, each column corresponds to a different driver, while each row represents a different driving scenario. The first row (Red-light Stopping) shows the variability in the following distance maintained by different drivers when stopping behind another vehicle at a red light. The second row (Car Following) illustr… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: highlights the variety of scenes and events covered in our dataset. In this figure, the first two rows illustrate the diversity of driving scenarios, including complex road structures such as roundabouts, highway exit ramps, and situations where a multi-lane road suddenly merges into fewer lanes. The third row highlights variations in traffic density and driving events. For instance, the first image depict… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Human driving behavior is inherently diverse, yet most end-to-end autonomous driving (E2E-AD) systems learn a single average driving style, neglecting individual differences. Achieving personalized E2E-AD faces challenges across three levels: limited real-world datasets with individual-level annotations, a lack of quantitative metrics for evaluating personal driving styles, and the absence of algorithms that can learn stylized representations from users' trajectories. To address these gaps, we propose Person2Drive, a comprehensive personalized E2E-AD platform and benchmark. It includes an open-source, flexible data collection system that simulates realistic scenarios to generate scalable and diverse personalized driving datasets; style vector-based evaluation metrics with Maximum Mean Discrepancy and KL divergence to comprehensively quantify individual driving behaviors; and a personalized E2E-AD framework with a style reward model that efficiently adapts E2E models for safe and individualized driving. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Person2Drive enables fine-grained analysis, reproducible evaluation, and effective personalization in end-to-end autonomous driving. Our dataset and code will be released after acceptance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Person2Drive gives a clean simulation benchmark for style-aware E2E driving with open metrics and adaptation, but the sim-to-real transfer is untested and load-bearing.

read the letter

The paper's core move is to bundle three pieces into one platform: a scalable simulator for collecting individualized driving traces, style vectors scored by MMD and KL divergence, and a reward model that fine-tunes an E2E policy toward a target style. That combination is new enough to be useful; most prior E2E work either ignores style or treats it as a post-hoc filter. Releasing the data generator and code is the right call and lowers the barrier for follow-up work. The three-level problem statement (data, metrics, algorithms) is also stated plainly and matches what people in the field actually complain about. On those points the paper earns credit. The experiments are described at a high level as showing reproducible evaluation and successful adaptation inside the simulator, which is at least internally consistent. The soft spot is exactly where the stress test points: everything stays in simulation. No real-world logs, no cross-validation against human drivers on the same routes, and no transfer tests appear. MMD and KL can look good when both distributions come from the same idealized dynamics, but that does not tell us whether the learned style vectors or the reward model survive noisy perception and real vehicle dynamics. If the central claim is that this enables safe, transferable personalization, the current evidence only supports the simulator version. The paper is aimed at E2E-AD researchers who want a starting point for style experiments rather than immediate deployment. It is coherent on its own terms and the open artifacts make it refereeable, so it should go to review with the expectation that the authors will need to add real-world checks or at least quantify the sim-to-real gap.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Person2Drive, a benchmark and platform for closed-loop personalized end-to-end autonomous driving (E2E-AD). It introduces a flexible simulation-based data collection system to generate scalable personalized driving datasets, style vector-based quantitative metrics using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and KL divergence to evaluate individual driving styles, and a personalized E2E-AD framework incorporating a style reward model for adapting models to user-specific behaviors. The central claim is that extensive experiments on this platform demonstrate fine-grained analysis of driving styles, reproducible evaluation, and effective personalization while maintaining safety.

Significance. If the simulation faithfully reproduces individual human style distributions and the MMD/KL metrics plus style reward model yield transferable personalization, the work would provide a valuable open benchmark for addressing the under-explored problem of style diversity in E2E-AD. The commitment to release dataset and code would further support community reproducibility. The platform's focus on closed-loop evaluation and quantitative style metrics could help shift the field from average-behavior models toward individualized systems, though current evidence is confined to simulation.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (Data Collection System): All trajectories are generated exclusively in simulation with no real-world driving logs, cross-validation against human data, or sim-to-real transfer experiments. This assumption is load-bearing for the claims of 'effective personalization' and 'safe and individualized driving' because MMD/KL metrics and the style reward model can succeed by fitting simulator-specific artifacts (perfect perception, idealized dynamics) that may not transfer, undermining applicability to actual E2E-AD.
[§5] §5 (Experiments): The abstract states that 'extensive experiments demonstrate' fine-grained analysis and effective personalization, yet no quantitative results, baseline comparisons, ablation studies on the style reward model, or error analysis (e.g., collision rates under personalization) are detailed in the provided text. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the reported gains are statistically meaningful or merely reflect simulation biases.

minor comments (2)

The paper states code and dataset will be released 'after acceptance.' For a benchmark contribution, providing a pre-release link or detailed reproducibility checklist in the supplementary material would strengthen the reproducibility claims.
[§4] Clarify the exact construction of the 'style vector' (how trajectories are encoded into it) and the architecture/training of the style reward model in the methods section to allow independent re-implementation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's feedback on our paper introducing Person2Drive. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (Data Collection System): All trajectories are generated exclusively in simulation with no real-world driving logs, cross-validation against human data, or sim-to-real transfer experiments. This assumption is load-bearing for the claims of 'effective personalization' and 'safe and individualized driving' because MMD/KL metrics and the style reward model can succeed by fitting simulator-specific artifacts (perfect perception, idealized dynamics) that may not transfer, undermining applicability to actual E2E-AD.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. Person2Drive is intentionally designed as a simulation-based benchmark to overcome the challenges of collecting large-scale, annotated personalized real-world driving data. The data collection system, metrics, and adaptation framework are all evaluated in this controlled setting to ensure reproducibility and fine-grained control over scenarios. We agree that transfer to real-world E2E-AD systems remains an open challenge and will add a paragraph in the revised manuscript discussing the limitations of simulation and outlining future work on sim-to-real adaptation. The current results demonstrate the feasibility of style quantification and personalization within the simulator, which we believe is a valuable first step. revision: partial
Referee: [§5] §5 (Experiments): The abstract states that 'extensive experiments demonstrate' fine-grained analysis and effective personalization, yet no quantitative results, baseline comparisons, ablation studies on the style reward model, or error analysis (e.g., collision rates under personalization) are detailed in the provided text. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the reported gains are statistically meaningful or merely reflect simulation biases.

Authors: We apologize if the experimental details were not clearly visible in the version provided to the referee. The full paper includes extensive quantitative results in Section 5, with tables showing MMD/KL scores for different styles, comparisons against non-personalized baselines, ablations removing the style reward, and safety metrics including collision and off-road rates for personalized models. We will revise to include more detailed error analysis and statistical tests to strengthen the presentation of these results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in benchmark proposal or metrics

full rationale

The paper is a benchmark proposal introducing a simulation-based data collection system, MMD/KL style metrics, and a style reward model for personalization. No equations, derivations, or first-principles results are shown that reduce by construction to fitted inputs or self-citations. The central claims rest on experimental demonstration within the proposed platform rather than any self-referential loop; the simulation-to-real assumption is a validity concern, not a circularity issue. This is a standard honest non-finding for a systems/benchmark paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unverified assumption that simulation faithfully captures individual driving styles and that the introduced metrics and reward model transfer to real vehicles.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Simulated closed-loop scenarios can generate scalable, diverse, and realistic personalized driving trajectories that reflect real individual differences.
The data collection system is built on this premise to address the lack of real-world annotated datasets.

invented entities (2)

style vector no independent evidence
purpose: Compact representation of an individual's driving style for metric computation and reward shaping.
Introduced as the basis for the evaluation metrics and adaptation framework.
style reward model no independent evidence
purpose: Component that provides reward signals to adapt an E2E-AD policy toward a target personal style.
Core of the personalization framework described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5510 in / 1336 out tokens · 38699 ms · 2026-05-15T20:12:42.322934+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

style vector-based evaluation metrics with Maximum Mean Discrepancy and KL divergence to comprehensively quantify individual driving behaviors; and a personalized E2E-AD framework with a style reward model
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We develop an open-source and highly extensible data collection platform that simulates realistic driving scenarios at low cost

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

XEmbodied: A Foundation Model with Enhanced Geometric and Physical Cues for Large-Scale Embodied Environments
cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

XEmbodied is a foundation model that integrates 3D geometric and physical signals into VLMs using a 3D Adapter and Efficient Image-Embodied Adapter, plus progressive curriculum and RL post-training, to improve spatial...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence (2024)

Chen, L., Wu, P., Chitta, K., Jaeger, B., Geiger, A., Li, H.: End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles9(1), 103–118 (2023)

Chib,P.S.,Singh,P.:Recentadvancementsinend-to-endautonomousdrivingusing deep learning: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles9(1), 103–118 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

Codevilla, F., Müller, M., López, A., Koltun, V., Dosovitskiy, A.: End-to-end driv- ing via conditional imitation learning. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). pp. 4693–4700. IEEE (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

In:2024IEEE27thInternationalConferenceonIntelligentTransportationSystems (ITSC)

Cui, C., Yang, Z., Zhou, Y., Ma, Y., Lu, J., Li, L., Chen, Y., Panchal, J., Wang, Z.: Personalized autonomous driving with large language models: Field experiments. In:2024IEEE27thInternationalConferenceonIntelligentTransportationSystems (ITSC). pp. 20–27. IEEE (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

CARLA Challenge Technical Report (2023)

Dosovitskiy, A., et al.: Carla leaderboard 2.0: Evaluating closed-loop autonomous driving. CARLA Challenge Technical Report (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Transportation research procedia27, 945–952 (2017)

Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G., Pungillo, G.: How drivers’ characteristics can affect driving style. Transportation research procedia27, 945–952 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Annual Reviews in Control44, 323–341 (2017)

Gruyer, D., Magnier, V., Hamdi, K., Claussmann, L., Orfila, O., Rakotonirainy, A.: Perception, information processing and modeling: Critical stages for autonomous driving applications. Annual Reviews in Control44, 323–341 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems22(4), 2076–2087 (2020)

Hang, P., Lv, C., Xing, Y., Huang, C., Hu, Z.: Human-like decision making for au- tonomous driving: A noncooperative game theoretic approach. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems22(4), 2076–2087 (2020)

work page 2076
[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23982 (2025)

Hao, R., Jing, B., Yu, H., Nie, Z.: Styledrive: Towards driving-style aware benchmarking of end-to-end autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23982 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles5(2), 335–344 (2019)

Hasenjäger, M., Heckmann, M., Wersing, H.: A survey of personalization for ad- vanced driver assistance systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles5(2), 335–344 (2019)

work page 2019
[11]

In: 2017 ieee 20th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (itsc)

Hasenjäger, M., Wersing, H.: Personalization in advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles: A review. In: 2017 ieee 20th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (itsc). pp. 1–7. IEEE (2017)

work page 2017
[12]

In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on intelli- gent user interfaces

Häuslschmid, R., Von BüLow, M., Pfleging, B., Butz, A.: Supportingtrust in au- tonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on intelli- gent user interfaces. pp. 319–329 (2017)

work page 2017
[13]

Sensors22(8), 3043 (2022)

Holzinger, A., Saranti, A., Angerschmid, A., Retzlaff, C.O., Gronauer, A., Pe- jakovic, V., Medel-Jimenez, F., Krexner, T., Gollob, C., Stampfer, K.: Digital transformation in smart farm and forest operations needs human-centered ai: chal- lenges and future directions. Sensors22(8), 3043 (2022)

work page 2022
[14]

Brain4Cars: Car That Knows Before You Do via Sensory-Fusion Deep Learning Architecture

Jain, A., Koppula, H.S., Soh, S., Raghavan, B., Singh, A., Saxena, A.: Brain4cars: Car that knows before you do via sensory-fusion deep learning architecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.00740 (2016)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[15]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Jia, X., Wu, P., Chen, L., Xie, J., He, C., Yan, J., Li, H.: Think twice before driving: Towards scalable decoders for end-to-end autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 21983–21994 (2023)

work page 2023
[16]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 819–844 (2024) Driving Like Yourself 17

Jia, X., Yang, Z., Li, Q., Zhang, Z., Yan, J.: Bench2drive: Towards multi-ability benchmarking of closed-loop end-to-end autonomous driving. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 819–844 (2024) Driving Like Yourself 17

work page 2024
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07656 (2025)

Jia, X., You, J., Zhang, Z., Yan, J.: Drivetransformer: Unified transformer for scalable end-to-end autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07656 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

In: 2024 IEEE 27th International Conference on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems (ITSC)

Ke, Z., Jiang, Y., Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Li, J., Wang, J.: D2e: An autonomous decision-making dataset involving driver states and human evaluation of driving behavior. In: 2024 IEEE 27th International Conference on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems (ITSC). pp. 2294–2301. IEEE (2024)

work page 2024
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05240 (2025)

Kou, G., Jia, F., Mao, W., Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Z., Yoshie, O., Wang, T., Li, Y., Zhang, X.: Padriver: Towards personalized autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05240 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

In: 2023 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC)

Li, S., Wei, C., Wu, G., Barth, M.J., Abdelraouf, A., Gupta, R., Han, K.: Person- alized trajectory prediction for driving behavior modeling in ramp-merging sce- narios. In: 2023 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC). pp. 1–4. IEEE (2023)

work page 2023
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08481 (2024)

Li, Y., Fan, L., He, J., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Tan, T.: Enhancing end-to- end autonomous driving with latent world model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08481 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[22]

Liao, B., Chen, S., Yin, H., Jiang, B., Wang, C., Yan, S., Zhang, X., Li, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Q., et al.: Diffusiondrive: Truncated diffusion model for end-to-end au- tonomousdriving.In:ProceedingsoftheComputerVisionandPatternRecognition Conference. pp. 12037–12047 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

IEEE Internet of Things Journal10(15), 13235–13246 (2023)

Liao, X., Zhao, X., Wang, Z., Zhao, Z., Han, K., Gupta, R., Barth, M.J., Wu, G.: Driver digital twin for online prediction of personalized lane-change behavior. IEEE Internet of Things Journal10(15), 13235–13246 (2023)

work page 2023
[24]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

Liao,X.,Zhao,Z.,Barth,M.J.,Abdelraouf,A.,Gupta,R.,Han,K.,Ma,J.,Wu,G.: A review of personalization in driving behavior: Dataset, modeling, and validation. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

work page 2024
[25]

Moore, D.S., McCabe, G.P., Craig, B.A.: Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, vol. 4. WH Freeman New York (2009)

work page 2009
[26]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Prakash, A., Chitta, K., Geiger, A.: Multi-modal fusion transformer for end-to-end autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 7077–7087 (2021)

work page 2021
[27]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Qin, Z., Yao, X., Wei, C., Ji, A., Wu, G., Sun, Z.: Contextual-personalized adap- tive cruise control via fine-tuned large language models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1754–1762 (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

In: 2016 IEEE 19th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC)

Romera, E., Bergasa, L.M., Arroyo, R.: Need data for driver behaviour analysis? presenting the public uah-driveset. In: 2016 IEEE 19th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC). pp. 387–392. IEEE (2016)

work page 2016
[29]

IEEE Transactions on Robotics40, 1952–1965 (2024)

Schrum, M.L., Sumner, E., Gombolay, M.C., Best, A.: Maveric: A data-driven approach to personalized autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Robotics40, 1952–1965 (2024)

work page 1952
[30]

In: Conference on Robot Learning

Shao, H., Wang, L., Chen, R., Li, H., Liu, Y.: Safety-enhanced autonomous driving using interpretable sensor fusion transformer. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 726–737. PMLR (2023)

work page 2023
[31]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06477 (2025)

Wei, C., Qin, Z., Li, S., Zhang, Z., Zhao, X., Abdelraouf, A., Gupta, R., Han, K., Barth, M.J., Wu, G.: Pdb: Not all drivers are the same–a personalized dataset for understanding driving behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06477 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06875 (2025) 18

Xu, C., Liu, J., Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., Hang, P., Sun, J.: Towards human-centric autonomous driving: A fast-slow architecture integrating large language model guidance with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06875 (2025) 18

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Zhao, Z., Wang, Z., Han, K., Gupta, R., Tiwari, P., Wu, G., Barth, M.J.: Person- alized car following for autonomous driving with inverse reinforcement learning. In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 2891–

work page 2022
[34]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Zheng, W., Song, R., Guo, X., Zhang, C., Chen, L.: Genad: Generative end-to-end autonomous driving. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 87–104. Springer (2024) Driving Like Yourself 19 Driving Like Yourself: A Benchmark for Closed-Loop Personalized End-to-End Autonomous Driving Supplementary Material 1 Overview This supplementary material prov...

work page 2024