Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that a camera-only driving policy, trained with no logged expert trajectories, can match or beat published end-to-end driving baselines by distilling a self-play vector-state teacher into a vision student with action and lo

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 11:02 UTC pith:PONEVWXW

load-bearing objection A sensible self-play-to-pixels recipe with unusually honest ablations, but the headline benchmark win is not established because the baselines may not have been run under the paper's redefined closed-loop metric. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.17386 v2 pith:PONEVWXW submitted 2026-06-16 cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO

TerraTransfer: Learning End-to-End Driving Policies Without Expert Demonstrations

Zikang Xiong , Weixin Li , Zhouchonghao Wu , Akshay Rangesh , Saarth Bonde , Grantland Hall , Chen Tang , Yihan Hu
show 1 more author
Wei Zhan
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO
keywords end-to-end autonomous drivingself-play reinforcement learningteacher-student distillationdemonstration-free learninglow-rank feature alignmentclosed-loop evaluation3D Gaussian splatting simulationaction distribution matching
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the standard expensive recipe for end-to-end driving—fleet-scale logs, expert demonstrations, and image-space closed-loop reinforcement learning—can be replaced by a two-phase pipeline with no logged-trajectory supervision. In phase one, a single policy learns to drive through multi-agent self-play in a vectorized simulator, where massive rollouts naturally include collisions, near-misses, and recoveries. In phase two, that frozen policy acts as teacher: a vision encoder is aligned to it on paired (image, scene-state) frames using an action-distribution loss plus a low-rank relational structural loss, so the student learns to see without imitating a human. The paper reports that the resulting camera-only policy reaches 0.490 aggregate closed-loop HD-Score, surpassing published end-to-end baselines and coming within 0.03 of its privileged teacher. A sympathetic reader would care because the recipe shifts the dominant cost of autonomous-driving training from data collection into one-time, reusable, demonstration-free compute.

Core claim

The central claim is that driving competence and visual perception can be learned separately and then joined without any expert demonstration. A single policy is pretrained by multi-agent self-play in a vectorized simulator, with one parameter set controlling all agents and per-episode reward randomization, producing a teacher whose features are sharply low-rank (roughly 9 informative dimensions for map features, 13 for partners). The teacher is frozen, and a vision student—a pretrained image backbone with two linear adapters, inheriting the teacher's ego encoder and planning head—is aligned to it using forward KL divergence between action distributions plus a batch-relational structural los

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a two-phase decoupling: (1) a self-play vector policy pretrained with PPO under per-episode reward randomization, which supplies both the frozen planning head and a low-rank latent geometry; and (2) an alignment phase in which a vision encoder is trained, supervised solely by the frozen teacher, through an action KL term plus a batch-relational low-rank structural loss. The structural loss projects mean-centered student and teacher feature batches into the teacher's top-k right singular subspace (k=9 for map, k=13 for partners), computes cosine-similarity matrices between scenes, and penalizes their difference in Frobenius norm; this focuses the student on reproducing wh

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline comparison rests on the assumption that the baseline rows in the benchmark table were scored with the same redefined closed-loop HD-Score as the proposed policy, which the paper does not explicitly state; if those numbers come from the native open-loop metric, the comparison is not like-for-like.

What would settle it

Run a published baseline checkpoint through the paper's Appendix B closed-loop scorer on the same 88 scenarios and check whether the resulting aggregate matches the table; if the baseline score is unchanged from the native open-loop value or the margin flips, the central comparative claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, the standard fleet-scale log-collection and labeling pipeline for end-to-end driving can be bypassed; only paired (image, scene-state) frames and a frozen self-play teacher are needed.
  • Because alignment targets are teacher action distributions rather than recorded actions, the paired data can be collected by any rollout policy, including random actions; state coverage, not demonstration quality, determines the result (a point the paper tests in its appendix).
  • The cost of learning to drive shifts upstream into self-play, which is one-time and reusable: the same frozen teacher can supervise multiple vision frontends, sensor stacks, and alignment datasets.
  • The low-rank structure of teacher features makes the structural-loss rank an empirical choice rather than a hyperparameter; matching only the informative subspace is what preserves closed-loop performance.
  • Closed-loop evaluation with the paper's redefined scores should replace native plan-based scores when comparing single-step policies, since realized-rollout TTC, comfort, and arc-length route completion better reflect actual driving.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The headline margin over prior methods depends on whether the baselines were re-scored under the same closed-loop metric definitions; if they were not, the comparison may overstate the advance until an apples-to-apples rerun is done.
  • Because the teacher never sees brake lights, hand signals, or other fine-grained visual cues (the paper lists these as limitations), transferring the same recipe to real roads will likely require a small amount of real-world fine-tuning; self-play alone may not cover such cues.
  • The batch-relational low-rank loss should transfer to other teacher-student modality gaps (e.g., LiDAR-to-camera or map-to-image) wherever the teacher features are low-rank; testing the loss in those settings would show whether the low-rank assumption is the active ingredient.
  • The Extreme-tier gap suggests that conservative collision avoidance can suppress route completion; a reward or curriculum that explicitly rewards progress in adversarial scenes might close that gap without eroding safety.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TerraTransfer, a two-phase pipeline for end-to-end driving that avoids expert demonstrations. Phase 1 trains a single vector-state driving policy by multi-agent self-play in an in-house simulator (TerraZero), conditioning on ego state, road elements, and partner sets, with PPO and randomized reward weights. Phase 2 freezes this teacher and aligns a vision-based student to it using a paired image/scene-state dataset: the student shares the teacher's ego encoder, MLP, and actor head, and is supervised by a forward-KL action loss and a batch-relational low-rank structural loss computed on the teacher's feature subspace. The paper evaluates on the HUGSim photorealistic closed-loop benchmark and reports an aggregate closed-loop HD-Score of 0.490 for the vision student versus 0.452 for the strongest published baseline (ECO Smoothing-only), 0.360 for LTF, and 0.520 for the privileged self-play teacher. It also presents alignment-data-efficiency experiments and an empirical low-rank analysis of teacher features.

Significance. If the headline comparison is valid, this is a noteworthy advance: it demonstrates that a vision-based end-to-end policy can be trained without any logged-trajectory supervision, using self-play in a vectorized simulator followed by cross-modal alignment, and that the resulting policy approaches a privileged teacher and outperforms imitation-based pipelines on a photorealistic closed-loop benchmark. The paper's strengths include a clear method description, extensive ablations (loss decomposition, structural rank, vision backbone, alignment data policy), a detailed appendix defining the closed-loop metric, and a concrete low-rank motivation for the structural loss. The core risk is not the alignment method itself but the comparability of the headline baseline numbers, as discussed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 / Table 1 / Appendix B] The headline claim rests on comparing 'Ours' (0.490) with published baselines such as ECO (0.452) in Table 1 under a 'Closed-loop HD-Score (§4.1)'. However, Appendix B changes the metric: TTC moves from a binary check on a planned 7-pose trajectory to a fractional sweep over realized velocity-propagated boxes (Eqs. 10-12); COM switches from planned to realized poses (Eq. 13); and R_c becomes an arc-length fraction without the native 0.9 discount (Eq. 14). The paper never states that the UniAD/VAD/LTF/ECO rows were recomputed under Appendix B; the caption's 'published' wording suggests they are native HUGSim/paper scores. §B.2 even states that the redefined TTC and COM are 'not directly comparable' to their native counterparts. If the baseline rows are native scores, the 0.490 vs 0.452 margin is not a like-for-like comparison and the central claim is unsupported. Please state explicitly w
  2. [§4.1 / Appendix B, Table 3] There is an internal inconsistency about which subscores are redefined. §4.1 states that only TTC and COM are changed ('while leaving the rest of the HD-Score computation unchanged'), but Appendix B (Table 3) also replaces native R_c — a camera-pose-index fraction with a 0.9 discount — with an arc-length fraction min(1, max_t s_t/S) without the discount. This matters because R_c multiplies the aggregate (Eq. 9) and is the largest driver of the teacher's low Extreme score (Table 4). The manuscript should state the exact set of redefined components in §4.1 to avoid misdescribing the protocol.
  3. [§4.2 / Table 1] Even under a shared metric, the 0.038 aggregate margin over ECO is reported without confidence intervals or a paired significance test across the 88 scenarios. Figure 3 shows ±1 per-scene std for some curves, but Table 1 has no error bars, and per-scenario scores are not reported. A bootstrap or paired test would establish that the aggregate difference is not within noise. Please add per-scenario standard errors and significance tests for the All row and per-tier comparisons.
  4. [§3.2 / Appendix A.2] The student at inference is described as receiving 'ego kinematics and a navigation signal' (Fig. 2), while the teacher's ego observation also includes sampled vehicle geometry, dynamics coefficients, and a per-episode reward-weight vector (Appendix A.2). Since the ego encoder is inherited and frozen, the input dimensionality must match. The paper does not specify what values are fed for these extra dimensions at evaluation time, nor how reward weights are chosen for the student. This is a reproducibility gap in the method description and could affect behavior if the policy conditions on reward preferences.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 12 caption] 'Hugsim' should be 'HUGSim' for consistency.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says bands are ±1 per-scene std; state whether this is across scenarios, seeds, or both, and what N is per tier.
  3. [§4.3] The sentence 'roughly 40% of ECO's nuPlan frames' is correct but slightly confusing because the comparison uses ρ=0.6 of the 1.83M alignment set. Consider clarifying the calculation in the text.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (11)] The notation for the union of two conditions in Eq. (11) is dense; specifying that OBB intersections are checked at the same propagated time step δ would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the teacher/student distillation is self-contained; the Table 1 metric-protocol mismatch is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Phase 1 trains the teacher by PPO in TerraZero with reward terms (Eqs. 3-4) that do not include the HUGSim HD-Score. Phase 2 freezes that teacher and trains the vision student with an action KL term and a low-rank structural loss on the frozen teacher's features (Eqs. 5-6). At every paired frame the student's supervision is the teacher's action distribution on the reconstructed scene state, not the evaluation metric, so the closed-loop result 0.490 is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The rank cutoffs k_p=13 and k_r=9 are empirical diagnostics of the frozen teacher (§4.4) and are explicitly ablated (Table 7), so the structural target is not chosen on the evaluation outcome. The only notable self-citation, SPACeR [19], appears in Related Work as a prior self-play method and is not load-bearing. The genuine caveat is that Table 1's caption says 'Closed-loop HD-Score (§4.1)' while Appendix B redefines TTC, COM, and R_c for the authors' single-step policy, and the paper never states that UniAD/VAD/LTF/ECO rows were recomputed under that protocol; if those rows are native HUGSim published scores, the 0.490 vs 0.452 margin compares different metrics. That is an evaluation-validity/correctness risk, not a circularity: no equation in the paper makes the claimed result equal to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on the self-play teacher trained in a proprietary simulator, on reconstructed nuPlan scene states, and on a modified evaluation metric. No physical entities are invented; the main entry is TerraZero, which is not independently verifiable. The free parameters are mostly standard RL/distillation hyperparameters, but the structural ranks and closed-loop metric parameters directly affect the reported outcome.

free parameters (6)
  • Structural ranks kp=13, kr=9 = kp=13, kr=9 (80% cumulative energy of teacher spectra)
    Chosen from teacher feature spectra (§4.4, Fig. 4), then used in the structural loss. Paper calls this empirical rather than free, but it is data-derived.
  • Structural loss weight lambda = 0.5
    Total loss Lact + λ Lstruct; paper states performance is largely insensitive to λ.
  • Alignment batch size B = 1024
    Used for per-batch subspace basis; modal coverage diagnostic in Appendix D.3 motivates this value.
  • Closed-loop metric parameters = HTTC=1.0s, stride=0.2s, Nbg=100, WCOM=1.0s, keyframe stride=0.5s
    Set by the authors in Appendix B; directly change reported HD-Score values.
  • Self-play reward weight ranges = Table 2 ranges, e.g. collision U(0,3), comfort U(0,0.1), etc.
    Domain-randomized reward coefficients shape teacher behavior and are exposed to the policy; they are chosen, not fitted to evaluation.
  • Dynamics coefficient ranges = C ~ U(0.5,1.5) for throttle/steer/accel/vel
    Vehicle dynamics randomization inherited from GigaFlow and included in the ego observation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The optimal action depends on scene state, not on the modality used to perceive it.
    Stated in §1; the entire distillation assumes an image-conditioned student can recover the same action distribution as the vector teacher from paired state.
  • domain assumption TerraZero's vectorized self-play produces a policy whose competence transfers to photorealistic closed-loop driving.
    Self-play on nuPlan maps with procedural traffic is assumed sufficient for HUGSim/nuScenes scenarios (§3.1, Table 1).
  • domain assumption nuPlan log frames can be reconstructed into scene-state observations aligned with the teacher's input.
    Paired (image, scene-state) dataset construction in §3.2/§4.3; if reconstruction is noisy, teacher targets are noisy.
  • domain assumption The closed-loop HD-Score in Appendix B is a fair common metric for all rows of Table 1.
    The paper redefines TTC/COM/Rc; comparability to published baselines depends on this premise, which is never explicitly stated.
  • domain assumption DINOv3 features are linearly adaptable to road and partner features.
    Two linear adapters in §3.2; supported internally by Appendix E, but no external grounding is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • TerraZero in-house vectorized simulator no independent evidence
    purpose: Self-play training environment and source of the teacher policy; central to Phase 1.
    No public release or external validation; the paper's claims depend on its fidelity and scalability.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23156 in / 14854 out tokens · 137369 ms · 2026-08-02T11:02:58.214867+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

End-to-end autonomous driving has achieved state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks and real-world deployments. Its standard training recipe, however, is expensive across all stages: collecting and labeling millions of driving frames is costly, and closed-loop RL on images is bottlenecked by the per-step cost of photorealistic rendering plus a forward pass through a large vision backbone. Self-play in vectorized simulators changes the economics: millions of rollout steps per second, and a state distribution naturally rich in collisions, near-misses, and recoveries that no driving log contains. Our approach exploits this asymmetry by decoupling learning to drive from learning to see. We pretrain a single policy by self-play, then align its latent space with a pretrained vision backbone, through the action KL divergence and a batch-relational low-rank structural loss. The action target comes from the self-play policy, so alignment never supervises against a logged trajectory: a paired dataset of (image, scene-state) frames suffices, with no need for the curated expert demonstrations that imitation pretraining is built on. On photorealistic 3D Gaussian splatting closed-loop scenarios, the resulting end-to-end policy matches or exceeds prior end-to-end methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17386 by Akshay Rangesh, Chen Tang, Grantland Hall, Saarth Bonde, Weixin Li, Wei Zhan, Yihan Hu, Zhouchonghao Wu, Zikang Xiong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conventional vs. proposed training paradigm. (a) Conventional recipes begin with imitation pretraining on fleet-scale logs, then add supervised fine-tuning, open-loop RL on logged trajectories, or closed-loop image RL in sensor simulators, each path requiring expensive human￾driving data or photorealistic rendering. (b) Our two-phase paradigm decouples learning to drive from learning to see: Phase 1 trains… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-phase training pipeline. Flame icons mark trainable modules and snowflakes mark frozen ones; red arrows carry gradients and blue arrows do not. Phase 1 (left): A single self-play vector policy is trained end-to-end with PPO in a multi-agent vectorized simulator. The ego, map, and partner encoders, and the action head are jointly optimized, and the same parameter set controls every agent in the scene so… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Alignment data efficiency. Closed-loop HD-Score vs. relative nuPlan training data ρ (our full alignment set = 1.83M frames ⇒ ρ = 1), for the All set (top) and each HUGSim tier (bottom) on nuScenes; bands are ±1 per-scene std. The self-play teacher (§4.2) uses no nuPlan data and sits at ρ = 0 (horizon￾tal dashed line) in every panel; ECO Smoothing-only is placed at ρ ≈ 1.6 (∼2.8M nuPlan frames vs. our 1.83M… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Modal coverage: ensemble-averaged squared projection of the batch-derived top- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of perturbation energy preserved in the projected subspace as a function of batch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Front-camera samples from decoupled alignment data. A grid of CAM F0 observa￾tions collected from HUGSim rollouts. These frames provide paired visual observations and re￾constructed scene states for the alignment loss; their actions are not used as expert demonstrations, so rollout quality affects alignment only through the state coverage induced by the data-collection policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cut-in negotiation. The ego initially travels at low speed while monitoring a vehicle that could cut in. Once it confirms the vehicle has no cut-in intention (center), the ego accelerates and overtakes smoothly (right). The speed profile shows a brief deceleration followed by a sustained ramp-up, demonstrating that the policy withholds commitment until the other agent’s intent is re￾solved. A static car is… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overtaking with oncoming traffic. A static vehicle blocks the lane while a slow oncom￾ing car approaches. The policy decides to overtake (center), accelerates past the static vehicle, and merges back into the original lane before the oncoming car arrives (right). The speed profile rises throughout the maneuver, reflecting a committed overtake decision made under time pressure. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lead vehicle yielding route. The policy follows a slow lead vehicle at a steady speed (left). When the lead vehicle diverges from the ego’s route (center), the ego turns onto its own path and accelerates (right). The speed profile is flat during the follow phase and then climbs sharply after the turn, showing the policy correctly disengages from the lead once it is no longer relevant. Slow down when appro… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Narrow-lane passage. In a narrow lane, the policy slows when approaching an oncoming vehicle (left), holds a reduced speed while passing (center), and then begins decelerating again in anticipation of a vulnerable road user detected ahead (right, red box). The speed profile oscillates rather than recovering fully, reflecting the policy’s forward-looking awareness of the downstream hazard. Extreme scenario… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visually implausible extreme-tier scenarios. Extreme scenarios in the HUGSim bench￾mark can be visually unrealistic, with implausible initial configurations, or an occluded environment where other cars can pass through each other. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Pictura: Perspective-View Self-Play at Scale for Driving

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Perspective-image self-play at 50B agent steps produces a driving policy that approaches privileged-vector performance in-domain and transfers better to re-rendered Waymo layouts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Paden, M

    B. Paden, M. ˇC´ap, S. Z. Yong, D. Yershov, and E. Frazzoli. A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, 1(1):33–55, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caine, V . Vasudevan, W. Han, J. Ngiam, H. Zhao, A. Timofeev, S. Ettinger, M. Krivokon, A. Gao, A. Joshi, Y . Zhang, J. Shlens, Z. Chen, and D. Anguelov. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF ...

    2020

  3. [3]

    Caesar, J

    H. Caesar, J. Kabzan, K. S. Tan, W. K. Fong, E. Wolff, A. Lang, L. Fletcher, O. Beijbom, and S. Omari. nuPlan: A closed-loop ML-based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11810, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Bojarski, D

    M. Bojarski, D. D. Testa, D. Dworakowski, B. Firner, B. Flepp, P. Goyal, L. D. Jackel, M. Mon- fort, U. Muller, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhao, and K. Zieba. End to end learning for self-driving cars.arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316, 2016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Codevilla, E

    F. Codevilla, E. Santana, A. M. L ´opez, and A. Gaidon. Exploring the limitations of behavior cloning for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Caesar, V

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang, L. Lu, X. Jia, Q. Liu, J. Dai, Y . Qiao, and H. Li. Planning-oriented autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Jiang, S

    B. Jiang, S. Chen, Q. Xu, B. Liao, J. Chen, H. Zhou, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, C. Huang, and X. Wang. V AD: Vectorized scene representation for efficient autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Chitta, A

    K. Chitta, A. Prakash, B. Jaeger, Z. Yu, K. Renz, and A. Geiger. TransFuser: Imitation with transformer-based sensor fusion for autonomous driving.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(11):12878–12895, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Dauner, M

    D. Dauner, M. Hallgarten, T. Li, X. Weng, Z. Huang, Z. Yang, H. Li, I. Gilitschenski, B. Ivanovic, M. Pavone, A. Geiger, and K. Chitta. NA VSIM: Data-driven non-reactive au- tonomous vehicle simulation and benchmarking. InAdvances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    H. Zhou, L. Lin, J. Wang, Y . Lu, D. Bai, B. Liu, Y . Wang, A. Geiger, and Y . Liao. HUGSIM: A real-time, photo-realistic and closed-loop simulator for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01718, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Zhang, M

    B. Zhang, M. Golchoubian, I. Gilitschenski, B. Ivanovic, and K. Chitta. Endpoint constrained trajectory optimization for driving foundation models. InICCV RealADSim Workshop, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Karkus, M

    P. Karkus, M. Igl, Y . Chen, K. Chitta, J. Packer, B. Douillard, T. Tian, A. Naumann, G. Garcia- Cobo, S. Tan, A. Degirmenci, A. Popov, N. Smolyanskiy, U. Muller, B. Ivanovic, and M. Pavone. Beyond behavior cloning in autonomous driving: a survey of closed-loop training techniques.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Dosovitskiy, G

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun. CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. InProceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2017. 9

    2017

  15. [15]

    D. Chen, B. Zhou, V . Koltun, and P. Kr¨ahenb¨uhl. Learning by cheating. InProceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    Zhang, A

    Z. Zhang, A. Liniger, D. Dai, F. Yu, and L. Van Gool. End-to-end urban driving by imitating a reinforcement learning coach. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    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. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    Cusumano-Towner, D

    M. Cusumano-Towner, D. Hafner, A. Hertzberg, B. Huval, A. Petrenko, E. Vinitsky, E. Wij- mans, T. Killian, S. Bowers, O. Sener, P. Kr¨ahenb¨uhl, and V . Koltun. Robust autonomy emerges from self-play.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03349, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Chang, A

    W.-J. Chang, A. Rangesh, K. Joseph, M. Strong, M. Tomizuka, Y . Hu, and W. Zhan. SPACeR: Self-play anchoring with centralized reference models. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026

    2026

  20. [20]

    Seong, J.-K

    H. Seong, J.-K. Lee, H. Myeong, Y . Shin, H.-M. Cho, D. H. Kim, P. Desai, and M. Surana. Post-training and test-time scaling of generative agent behavior models for interactive au- tonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13262, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Y . Guo, D. Ye, S. Chen, A. Liu, and X. Liu. CorrectionPlanner: Self-correction planner with reinforcement learning in autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15771, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Konstantinidis, M

    F. Konstantinidis, M. Sackmann, U. Hofmann, and C. Stiller. Toward efficient and robust behavior models for multi-agent driving simulation. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2026

    2026

  23. [23]

    Ahmadi, H

    E. Ahmadi, H. Schofield, B. Khamidehi, F. Arasteh, J. Shan, L. Mou, K. Rezaee, and D. Bai. RLFTSim: Realistic and controllable multi-agent traffic simulation via reinforcement learning fine-tuning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    Sim ´eoni, H

    O. Sim ´eoni, H. V . V o, M. Seitzer, F. Baldassarre, M. Oquab, C. Jose, V . Khalidov, M. Szafraniec, S. Yi, M. Ramamonjisoa, F. Massa, D. Haziza, L. Wehrstedt, J. Wang, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, L. Sentana, C. Roberts, A. Vedaldi, J. Tolan, J. Brandt, C. Couprie, J. Mairal, H. J´egou, P. Labatut, and P. Bojanowski. DINOv3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    W. Wu, X. Feng, Z. Gao, and Y . Kan. SMART: Scalable multi-agent real-time motion gen- eration via next-token prediction. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    G. Hess, C. Lindstr ¨om, M. Fatemi, C. Petersson, and L. Svensson. SplatAD: Real-time lidar and camera rendering with 3d gaussian splatting for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    H. Gao, S. Chen, B. Jiang, B. Liao, Y . Shi, X. Guo, Y . Pu, H. Yin, X. Li, X. Zhang, Y . Zhang, W. Liu, Q. Zhang, and X. Wang. RAD: Training an end-to-end driving policy via large-scale 3DGS-based reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    J. Suarez. PufferLib: Making reinforcement learning libraries and environments play nice. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12905, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Kaufmann, L

    E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza. Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning.Nature, 620(7976):982–987, 2023. 10

    2023

  30. [30]

    Kumar, R

    A. Kumar, R. Bahlous-Boldi, P. Sharma, P. Isola, S. Risi, Y . Tang, and D. Ha. Digital red queen: Adversarial program evolution in core war with LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03335, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    C. Jia, Y . Yang, Y . Xia, Y .-T. Chen, Z. Parekh, H. Pham, Q. V . Le, Y .-H. Sung, Z. Li, and T. Duerig. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text su- pervision. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. Hoi. BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023

    2023

  34. [34]

    A. A. Rusu, S. G. Colmenarejo, C ¸ . G ¨ulc ¸ehre, G. Desjardins, J. Kirkpatrick, R. Pascanu, V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, and R. Hadsell. Policy distillation. InProceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    Parisotto, J

    E. Parisotto, J. Ba, and R. Salakhutdinov. Actor-mimic: Deep multitask and transfer reinforce- ment learning. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016

    2016

  36. [36]

    Y . W. Teh, V . Bapst, W. M. Czarnecki, J. Quan, J. Kirkpatrick, R. Hadsell, N. Heess, and R. Pascanu. Distral: Robust multitask reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017

    2017

  37. [37]

    Schmitt, J

    S. Schmitt, J. J. Hudson, A. ˇZ´ıdek, S. Osindero, C. Doersch, W. M. Czarnecki, J. Z. Leibo, H. K¨uttler, A. Zisserman, K. Simonyan, and S. M. A. Eslami. Kickstarting deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.03835, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    J. Lee, J. Hwangbo, L. Wellhausen, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter. Learning quadrupedal locomo- tion over challenging terrain.Science Robotics, 5(47):eabc5986, 2020

    2020

  39. [39]

    T. Miki, J. Lee, J. Hwangbo, L. Wellhausen, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter. Learning robust per- ceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild.Science Robotics, 7(62):eabk2822, 2022

    2022

  40. [40]

    Kumar, Z

    A. Kumar, Z. Fu, D. Pathak, and J. Malik. RMA: Rapid motor adaptation for legged robots. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2021

    2021

  41. [41]

    Loquercio, E

    A. Loquercio, E. Kaufmann, R. Ranftl, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza. Learning high-speed flight in the wild.Science Robotics, 6(59):eabg5810, 2021

    2021

  42. [42]

    T. Chen, J. Xu, and P. Agrawal. A system for general in-hand object re-orientation. InPro- ceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2021

    2021

  43. [43]

    Z. Wu, R. Song, V . Mundheda, L. E. Navarro-Serment, C. Schoenborn, and J. Schneider. TADPO: Reinforcement learning goes off-road. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2603.05995

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Hinton, O

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. InNeurIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop, 2015

    2015

  45. [45]

    Philion, A

    J. Philion, A. Kar, and S. Fidler. Learning to evaluate perception models using planner-centric metrics. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), 2020. 11

    2020

  46. [46]

    Li and X

    W.-X. Li and X. Yang. Transcendental idealism of planner: Evaluating perception from plan- ning perspective for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023

    2023

  47. [47]

    Tung and G

    F. Tung and G. Mori. Similarity-preserving knowledge distillation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1365–1374, 2019

    2019

  48. [48]

    Zaheer, S

    M. Zaheer, S. Kottur, S. Ravanbakhsh, B. Poczos, R. R. Salakhutdinov, and A. J. Smola. Deep sets. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017

    2017

  49. [49]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Schulman, P

    J. Schulman, P. Moritz, S. Levine, M. Jordan, and P. Abbeel. High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438, 2015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Gavish and D

    M. Gavish and D. L. Donoho. The optimal hard threshold for singular values is4/ √ 3.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(8):5040–5053, 2014

    2014

  52. [52]

    Roy and M

    O. Roy and M. Vetterli. The effective rank: A measure of effective dimensionality. In2007 15th European Signal Processing Conference, pages 606–610. IEEE, 2007. 12 Supplementary Contents A Self-Play Policy Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B Closed-Loop HD...

    arXiv 2007