pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.07686 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-08 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.CV

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

UniUncer: Unified Dynamic Static Uncertainty for End to End Driving

Yu Gao , Jijun Wang , Zongzheng Zhang , Anqing Jiang , Yiru Wang , Yuwen Heng , Shuo Wang , Hao Sun
show 2 more authors
Zhangfeng Hu Hao Zhao
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 14:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.CV
keywords end-to-end drivinguncertainty estimationstatic map uncertaintydynamic agent uncertaintyLaplace regressortrajectory planningnuScenesautonomous vehicles
0
0 comments X

The pith

UniUncer adds a unified uncertainty framework that jointly handles static maps and dynamic agents inside end-to-end driving planners.

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

End-to-end driving maps raw sensor inputs straight to control actions, but its reliability suffers when the system cannot express uncertainty about the scene. The paper shows that existing planners typically model uncertainty only for static map elements and leave dynamic agents uncalibrated, which produces overconfident plans in traffic. UniUncer fixes this by converting ordinary prediction heads into Laplace regressors that output both location and per-element uncertainty scale for vectorized static and dynamic objects alike. These uncertainty parameters are then fused into the planner’s queries and used by a dedicated gate to decide how much to trust historical ego status or past perception. The resulting planner records lower trajectory error on nuScenes and higher EPDMS on NavsimV2, especially in interaction-dense scenes, while adding almost no computational cost.

Core claim

UniUncer is the first lightweight, unified uncertainty framework that jointly estimates and uses uncertainty for both static and dynamic scene elements inside an E2E planner by converting deterministic heads to probabilistic Laplace regressors that output per-vertex location and scale, introducing an uncertainty-fusion module that encodes these parameters into object and map queries, and designing an uncertainty-aware gate that adaptively modulates reliance on historical inputs based on current uncertainty levels.

What carries the argument

The uncertainty-fusion module and uncertainty-aware gate that together encode Laplace-derived location and scale parameters into planning queries and then modulate historical inputs according to measured uncertainty.

If this is right

  • Average L2 trajectory error drops 7 % on nuScenes open-loop evaluation.
  • Overall EPDMS score rises 10.8 % on NavsimV2 pseudo closed-loop tests, with larger gains in interaction-heavy scenes.
  • Throughput falls by only about 0.5 FPS, keeping the method nearly cost-free.
  • Ablations show that both dynamic-agent uncertainty and the uncertainty-aware gate are required for the reported gains.
  • The framework is plug-and-play with common end-to-end driving backbones.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Planners could use the per-element uncertainty values to trigger more conservative maneuvers when either map or agent uncertainty spikes.
  • The same Laplace-plus-gate pattern might transfer to other robotics domains that mix static infrastructure with moving agents.
  • A direct test would measure whether the output uncertainty scales correlate with actual future prediction error on held-out real-world logs.
  • Longer-horizon planning or multi-agent interaction modeling could become more stable once uncertainty is propagated through the entire planning stack.

Load-bearing premise

The observed gains on nuScenes and NavsimV2 come specifically from the joint static-dynamic uncertainty modeling and the uncertainty-aware gate rather than from unrelated changes in training or network architecture.

What would settle it

An ablation that keeps the identical backbone, training schedule, and all other modules fixed while disabling only the dynamic-agent Laplace heads and the uncertainty-aware gate, then checks whether the 7 % L2 and 10.8 % EPDMS improvements disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.07686 by Anqing Jiang, Hao Sun, Hao Zhao, Jijun Wang, Shuo Wang, Yiru Wang, Yu Gao, Yuwen Heng, Zhangfeng Hu, Zongzheng Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between (a) a standard E2E autonomous driving model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the UniUncer framework. UniUncer extends the static and dynamic branches with a unified uncertainty estimation head to predict [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization of the Uncertainty-aware Gate (fine-grained feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results on the nuScenes dataset. With unified uncertainty estimation, the predicted trajectory from our model is closer to the ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on the Navhard two-stage test. Uncertainty estimation enables the planner to generate trajectories that are closer to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

End-to-end (E2E) driving has become a cornerstone of both industry deployment and academic research, offering a single learnable pipeline that maps multi-sensor inputs to actions while avoiding hand-engineered modules. However, the reliability of such pipelines strongly depends on how well they handle uncertainty: sensors are noisy, semantics can be ambiguous, and interaction with other road users is inherently stochastic. Uncertainty also appears in multiple forms: classification vs. localization, and, crucially, in both static map elements and dynamic agents. Existing E2E approaches model only static-map uncertainty, leaving planning vulnerable to overconfident and unreliable inputs. We present UniUncer, the first lightweight, unified uncertainty framework that jointly estimates and uses uncertainty for both static and dynamic scene elements inside an E2E planner. Concretely: (1) we convert deterministic heads to probabilistic Laplace regressors that output per-vertex location and scale for vectorized static and dynamic entities; (2) we introduce an uncertainty-fusion module that encodes these parameters and injects them into object/map queries to form uncertainty-aware queries; and (3) we design an uncertainty-aware gate that adaptively modulates reliance on historical inputs (ego status or temporal perception queries) based on current uncertainty levels. The design adds minimal overhead and drops throughput by only $\sim$0.5 FPS while remaining plug-and-play for common E2E backbones. On nuScenes (open-loop), UniUncer reduces average L2 trajectory error by 7\%. On NavsimV2 (pseudo closed-loop), it improves overall EPDMS by 10.8\% and notable stage two gains in challenging, interaction-heavy scenes. Ablations confirm that dynamic-agent uncertainty and the uncertainty-aware gate are both necessary.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces UniUncer, a lightweight unified uncertainty framework for end-to-end driving that jointly models uncertainty for static map elements and dynamic agents. It converts deterministic heads to Laplace regressors outputting per-vertex location and scale, adds an uncertainty-fusion module to produce uncertainty-aware queries, and incorporates an uncertainty-aware gate to modulate reliance on historical inputs. On nuScenes it reports a 7% reduction in average L2 trajectory error; on NavsimV2 it reports a 10.8% EPDMS improvement, with ablations indicating necessity of dynamic-agent uncertainty and the gate. The design is claimed to add minimal overhead (~0.5 FPS drop) and to be plug-and-play.

Significance. If the reported gains can be isolated to the three proposed components, the work would provide a practical, low-overhead route to incorporating both static and dynamic uncertainty into E2E planners, addressing a recognized gap in current pipelines and potentially improving robustness in interaction-heavy scenes.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Experiments) and ablation description: the 7% L2 and 10.8% EPDMS gains are attributed to the Laplace regressors, uncertainty-fusion module, and uncertainty-aware gate, yet the text does not explicitly confirm that the baseline E2E planner (architecture, optimizer, data augmentation, training schedule, loss weights) is held identical except for these additions. Without this control the attribution is not load-bearing.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (uncertainty-fusion module): the encoding of Laplace location/scale parameters into object/map queries is described at a conceptual level but lacks the precise equations or pseudocode needed to verify how the fusion produces uncertainty-aware queries; this directly affects reproducibility of the claimed plug-and-play property.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §4: absolute FPS numbers for both baseline and UniUncer should be reported alongside the ~0.5 FPS drop to substantiate the minimal-overhead claim.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1: the precise definition and computation of the EPDMS metric (especially stage-two components) should be restated or referenced for readers unfamiliar with NavsimV2.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help improve the clarity and reproducibility of our work. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Experiments) and ablation description: the 7% L2 and 10.8% EPDMS gains are attributed to the Laplace regressors, uncertainty-fusion module, and uncertainty-aware gate, yet the text does not explicitly confirm that the baseline E2E planner (architecture, optimizer, data augmentation, training schedule, loss weights) is held identical except for these additions. Without this control the attribution is not load-bearing.

    Authors: We confirm that the baseline E2E planner was held strictly identical across all experiments and ablations, including architecture, optimizer, data augmentation, training schedule, and loss weights, with changes limited exclusively to the three proposed components. We will revise §4 to include an explicit statement of this experimental control to make the attribution load-bearing. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (uncertainty-fusion module): the encoding of Laplace location/scale parameters into object/map queries is described at a conceptual level but lacks the precise equations or pseudocode needed to verify how the fusion produces uncertainty-aware queries; this directly affects reproducibility of the claimed plug-and-play property.

    Authors: We agree that the current description in §3.2 remains at a conceptual level. We will add the precise mathematical equations for encoding the Laplace location and scale parameters, along with pseudocode for the uncertainty-fusion module, in the revised manuscript to enable full reproducibility of the plug-and-play integration. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical architecture validated on public benchmarks

full rationale

The paper proposes an architectural extension (Laplace regressors, uncertainty-fusion module, uncertainty-aware gate) for E2E driving and reports performance lifts on nuScenes and NavsimV2 together with ablations. No mathematical derivation chain, fitted-parameter predictions, or self-citation load-bearing uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. All gains are presented as measured outcomes on external public datasets rather than quantities defined by construction from the same inputs. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all modeling choices remain at the level of high-level module descriptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5647 in / 1104 out tokens · 24356 ms · 2026-05-15T14:44:40.443311+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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.

  1. Unified Map Prior Encoder for Mapping and Planning

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    UMPE fuses any subset of HD/SD vector maps, raster SD maps, and satellite imagery into BEV features via alignment-aware vector and raster branches, raising mapping mAP by 5.3-5.9 points and cutting planning L2 error b...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    St-p3: End- to-end vision-based autonomous driving via spatial-temporal feature learning,

    S. Hu, L. Chen, P. Wu, H. Li, J. Yan, and D. Tao, “St-p3: End- to-end vision-based autonomous driving via spatial-temporal feature learning,” inECCV, 2022, pp. 533–549

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline,

    P. Wu, X. Jia, L. Chen, J. Yan, H. Li, and Y . Qiao, “Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline,”NeurIPS, vol. 35, pp. 6119–6132, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Scene as occupancy,

    W. Tong, C. Sima, T. Wang, L. Chen, S. Wu, H. Deng, Y . Gu, L. Lu, P. Luo, D. Lin,et al., “Scene as occupancy,” inICCV, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Think twice before driving: Towards scalable decoders for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    X. Jia, P. Wu, L. Chen, J. Xie, C. He, J. Yan, and H. Li, “Think twice before driving: Towards scalable decoders for end-to-end autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2023, pp. 21 983–21 994

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang,et al., “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in CVPR, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Vad: Vectorized scene representation for efficient autonomous driving,

    B. Jiang, S. Chen, Q. Xu, B. Liao, J. Chen, H. Zhou, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, C. Huang, and X. Wang, “Vad: Vectorized scene representation for efficient autonomous driving,” inICCV, 2023, pp. 8340–8350

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Int2: Interactive trajectory prediction at intersections,

    Z. Yan, P. Li, Z. Fu, S. Xu, Y . Shi, X. Chen, Y . Zheng, Y . Li, T. Liu, C. Li,et al., “Int2: Interactive trajectory prediction at intersections,” inICCV, 2023, pp. 8536–8547

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Unsuper- vised road anomaly detection with language anchors,

    B. Tian, M. Liu, H.-a. Gao, P. Li, H. Zhao, and G. Zhou, “Unsuper- vised road anomaly detection with language anchors,” inICRA, 2023, pp. 7778–7785

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Driveadapter: Breaking the coupling barrier of perception and planning in end-to-end autonomous driving,

    X. Jia, Y . Gao, L. Chen, J. Yan, P. L. Liu, and H. Li, “Driveadapter: Breaking the coupling barrier of perception and planning in end-to-end autonomous driving,” inICCV, 2023, pp. 7953–7963

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Tod3cap: Towards 3d dense captioning in outdoor scenes,

    B. Jin, Y . Zheng, P. Li, W. Li, Y . Zheng, S. Hu, X. Liu, J. Zhu, Z. Yan, H. Sun,et al., “Tod3cap: Towards 3d dense captioning in outdoor scenes,” inECCV, 2024, pp. 367–384

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Is ego status all you need for open-loop end-to-end autonomous driving?

    Z. Li, Z. Yu, S. Lan, J. Li, J. Kautz, T. Lu, and J. M. Alvarez, “Is ego status all you need for open-loop end-to-end autonomous driving?” in CVPR, 2024, pp. 14 864–14 873

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Ppad: Iterative interactions of prediction and planning for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Z. Chen, M. Ye, S. Xu, T. Cao, and Q. Chen, “Ppad: Iterative interactions of prediction and planning for end-to-end autonomous driving,” inECCV, 2024, pp. 239–256

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Genad: Generative end-to-end autonomous driving,

    W. Zheng, R. Song, X. Guo, C. Zhang, and L. Chen, “Genad: Generative end-to-end autonomous driving,” inECCV, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Para-drive: Parallelized architecture for real-time autonomous driving,

    X. Weng, B. Ivanovic, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and M. Pavone, “Para-drive: Parallelized architecture for real-time autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2024, pp. 15 449–15 458

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Sparsedrive: End-to-end autonomous driving via sparse scene representation,

    W. Sun, X. Lin, Y . Shi, C. Zhang, H. Wu, and S. Zheng, “Sparsedrive: End-to-end autonomous driving via sparse scene representation,” in ICRA, 2025, pp. 8795–8801

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Diffusiondrive: Truncated diffusion model for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    B. Liao, S. Chen, H. Yin, B. Jiang, C. Wang, S. Yan, X. Zhang, X. Li, Y . Zhang, Q. Zhang,et al., “Diffusiondrive: Truncated diffusion model for end-to-end autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Uncad: Towards safe end-to-end autonomous driving via online map uncertainty,

    P. Yang, Y . Zheng, Q. Zhang, K. Zhu, Z. Xing, Q. Lin, Y .-F. Liu, Z. Su, and D. Zhao, “Uncad: Towards safe end-to-end autonomous driving via online map uncertainty,” inICRA, 2025, pp. 6408–6415

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Goalflow: Goal-driven flow matching for multimodal trajectories generation in end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Z. Xing, X. Zhang, Y . Hu, B. Jiang, T. He, Q. Zhang, X. Long, and W. Yin, “Goalflow: Goal-driven flow matching for multimodal trajectories generation in end-to-end autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2025, pp. 1602–1611

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Bridging past and future: End-to-end autonomous driving with historical prediction and planning,

    B. Zhang, N. Song, X. Jin, and L. Zhang, “Bridging past and future: End-to-end autonomous driving with historical prediction and planning,” inCVPR, 2025, pp. 6854–6863

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Don’t shake the wheel: Momentum-aware planning in end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Z. Song, C. Jia, L. Liu, H. Pan, Y . Zhang, J. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Xu, L. Yang, and Y . Luo, “Don’t shake the wheel: Momentum-aware planning in end-to-end autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Enhancing end-to-end autonomous driving with latent world model,

    Y . Li, L. Fan, J. He, Y . Wang, Y . Chen, Z. Zhang, and T. Tan, “Enhancing end-to-end autonomous driving with latent world model,” ICLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Navigation-guided sparse scene representation for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    P. Li and D. Cui, “Navigation-guided sparse scene representation for end-to-end autonomous driving,”ICLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Drivetransformer: Unified transformer for scalable end-to-end autonomous driving,

    X. Jia, J. You, Z. Zhang, and J. Yan, “Drivetransformer: Unified transformer for scalable end-to-end autonomous driving,”ICLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Avd2: Accident video diffusion for accident video description,

    C. Li, K. Zhou, T. Liu, Y . Wang, M. Zhuang, H.-a. Gao, B. Jin, and H. Zhao, “Avd2: Accident video diffusion for accident video description,” inICRA, 2025, pp. 13 289–13 296

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Chameleon: Fast-slow neuro-symbolic lane topology extraction,

    Z. Zhang, X. Li, S. Zou, G. Chi, S. Li, X. Qiu, G. Wang, G. Zheng, L. Wang, H. Zhao,et al., “Chameleon: Fast-slow neuro-symbolic lane topology extraction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07485, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Hint-ad: Holistically aligned interpretability in end-to-end autonomous driving,

    K. Ding, B. Chen, Y . Su, H.-a. Gao, B. Jin, C. Sima, X. Li, W. Zhang, P. Barsch, H. Li,et al., “Hint-ad: Holistically aligned interpretability in end-to-end autonomous driving,” inCoRL, 2025, pp. 3742–3765

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Reusing attention for one-stage lane topology understanding,

    Y . Li, Z. Zhang, X. Qiu, X. Li, Z. Liu, L. Wang, R. Li, Z. Zhu, H.-a. Gao, X. Lin,et al., “Reusing attention for one-stage lane topology understanding,” inIROS, 2025, pp. 16 977–16 984

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Impromptu vla: Open weights and open data for driving vision-language-action models,

    H. Chi, H.-a. Gao, Z. Liu, J. Liu, C. Liu, J. Li, K. Yang, Y . Yu, Z. Wang, W. Li,et al., “Impromptu vla: Open weights and open data for driving vision-language-action models,”NeurIPS, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    World4drive: End-to-end autonomous driving via intention-aware physical latent world model,

    Y . Zheng, P. Yang, Z. Xing, Q. Zhang, Y . Zheng, Y . Gao, P. Li, T. Zhang, Z. Xia, P. Jia,et al., “World4drive: End-to-end autonomous driving via intention-aware physical latent world model,” inICCV, 2025, pp. 28 632–28 642

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Real-ad: Towards human-like reasoning in end-to-end autonomous driving,

    Y . Lu, J. Tu, Y . Ma, and X. Zhu, “Real-ad: Towards human-like reasoning in end-to-end autonomous driving,” inICCV, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Orion: A holistic end-to-end au- tonomous driving framework by vision-language instructed action generation,

    H. Fu, D. Zhang, Z. Zhao, J. Cui, D. Liang, C. Zhang, D. Zhang, H. Xie, B. Wang, and X. Bai, “Orion: A holistic end-to-end au- tonomous driving framework by vision-language instructed action generation,” inICCV, 2025, pp. 24 823–24 834

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Hip-ad: Hierarchical and multi-granularity planning with deformable attention for autonomous driving in a single decoder,

    Y . Tang, Z. Xu, Z. Meng, and E. Cheng, “Hip-ad: Hierarchical and multi-granularity planning with deformable attention for autonomous driving in a single decoder,” inICCV, 2025, pp. 25 605–25 615

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Dist-4d: Disentangled spatiotemporal diffusion with metric depth for 4d driving scene generation,

    J. Guo, Y . Ding, X. Chen, S. Chen, B. Li, Y . Zou, X. Lyu, F. Tan, X. Qi, Z. Li,et al., “Dist-4d: Disentangled spatiotemporal diffusion with metric depth for 4d driving scene generation,” inICCV, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Hydra-mdp++: Advancing end-to-end driving via expert- guided hydra-distillation,

    K. Li, Z. Li, S. Lan, Y . Xie, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Wu, Z. Yu, and J. M. Alvarez, “Hydra-mdp++: Advancing end-to-end driving via expert- guided hydra-distillation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12820, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Diffvla: Vision-language guided diffusion planning for autonomous driving,

    A. Jiang, Y . Gao, Z. Sun, Y . Wang, J. Wang, J. Chai, Q. Cao, Y . Heng, H. Jiang, Y . Dong,et al., “Diffvla: Vision-language guided diffusion planning for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19381, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Delving into mapping uncertainty for mapless trajectory prediction,

    Z. Zhang, X. Qiu, B. Zhang, G. Zheng, X. Gu, G. Chi, H.-a. Gao, L. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Li,et al., “Delving into mapping uncertainty for mapless trajectory prediction,” inIROS, 2025, pp. 16 969–16 976

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    End-to-end driving with online trajectory evaluation via bev world model,

    Y . Li, Y . Wang, Y . Liu, J. He, L. Fan, and Z. Zhang, “End-to-end driving with online trajectory evaluation via bev world model,” in ICCV, 2025, pp. 27 137–27 146

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Pro- ducing and leveraging online map uncertainty in trajectory prediction,

    X. Gu, G. Song, I. Gilitschenski, M. Pavone, and B. Ivanovic, “Pro- ducing and leveraging online map uncertainty in trajectory prediction,” inCVPR, 2024, pp. 14 521–14 530

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Transfuser: Imitation with transformer-based sensor fusion for au- tonomous driving,

    K. Chitta, A. Prakash, B. Jaeger, Z. Yu, K. Renz, and A. Geiger, “Transfuser: Imitation with transformer-based sensor fusion for au- tonomous driving,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 12 878–12 895, 2022

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Navsim: Data- driven non-reactive autonomous vehicle simulation and benchmark- ing,

    D. Dauner, M. Hallgarten, T. Li, X. Weng, Z. Huang, Z. Yang, H. Li, I. Gilitschenski, B. Ivanovic, M. Pavone,et al., “Navsim: Data- driven non-reactive autonomous vehicle simulation and benchmark- ing,”NeurIPS, vol. 37, pp. 28 706–28 719, 2024

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” inCoRL, 2017, pp. 1–16

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Bench2drive: Towards multi-ability benchmarking of closed-loop end-to-end autonomous driving,

    X. Jia, Z. Yang, Q. Li, Z. Zhang, and J. Yan, “Bench2drive: Towards multi-ability benchmarking of closed-loop end-to-end autonomous driving,”NeurIPS, vol. 37, pp. 819–844, 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Pseudo-simulation for autonomous driving,

    W. Cao, M. Hallgarten, T. Li, D. Dauner, X. Gu, C. Wang, Y . Miron, M. Aiello, H. Li, I. Gilitschenski,et al., “Pseudo-simulation for autonomous driving,” inCoRL, 2025, pp. 4709–4722

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?

    A. Kendall and Y . Gal, “What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?”NeurIPS, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Lightweight probabilistic deep networks,

    J. Gast and S. Roth, “Lightweight probabilistic deep networks,” in CVPR, 2018, pp. 3369–3378

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation,

    M. Poggi, F. Aleotti, F. Tosi, and S. Mattoccia, “On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation,” inCVPR, 2020

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Lasernet: An efficient probabilistic 3d object detector for autonomous driving,

    G. P. Meyer, A. Laddha, E. Kee, C. Vallespi-Gonzalez, and C. K. Wellington, “Lasernet: An efficient probabilistic 3d object detector for autonomous driving,” inCVPR, 2019, pp. 12 677–12 686

    work page 2019