Risk-Aware World Model Predictive Control for Generalizable End-to-End Autonomous Driving
Organizations: University of Trento, Trento, Italy · Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Abstract
With advances in imitation learning (IL) and large-scale driving datasets, end-to-end autonomous driving (E2E-AD) has made great progress recently. Currently, IL-based methods have become a mainstream paradigm: models rely on standard driving behaviors given by experts, and learn to minimize the discrepancy between their actions and expert actions. However, this objective of "only driving like the expert" suffers from limited generalization: when encountering rare or unseen long-tail scenarios outside the distribution of expert demonstrations, models tend to produce unsafe decisions in the absence of prior experience. This raises a fundamental question: Can an E2E-AD system make reliable decisions without any expert action supervision? Motivated by this, we propose a unified framework named Risk-aware World Model Predictive Control (RaWMPC) to address this generalization dilemma through robust control, without reliance on expert demonstrations. Practically, RaWMPC leverages a world model to predict the consequences of multiple candidate actions and selects low-risk actions through explicit risk evaluation. To endow the world model with the ability to predict the outcomes of risky driving behaviors, we design a risk-aware interaction strategy that systematically exposes the world model to hazardous behaviors, making catastrophic outcomes predictable and thus avoidable. Furthermore, to generate low-risk candidate actions at test time, we introduce a self-evaluation distillation method to distill riskavoidance capabilities from the well-trained world model into a generative action proposal network without any expert demonstration. Extensive experiments show that RaWMPC outperforms state-of-the-art methods in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios, while providing superior decision interpretability.
Figures & tables
| Method | Venue | Scheme | DS | SR(%) | Efficiency | Comfortness |
| VAD [ 31 ] | ICCV 2023 | IL | 42.35 | 15.00 | 157.94 | 46.01 |
| SparseDrive [ 69 ] | ICRA 2025 | IL | 44.54 | 16.71 | 170.21 | 48.63 |
| GenAD [ 99 ] | ECCV 2024 | IL | 44.81 | 15.90 | - | - |
| UniAD [ 25 ] | CVPR 2023 | IL | 45.81 | 16.36 | 129.21 | 43.58 |
| MomAD [ 68 ] | CVPR 2025 | IL | 47.91 | 18.11 | 174.91 | 51.20 |
| UAD [ 16 ] | T-PAMI 2025 | IL | 49.22 | 20.45 | 189.53 | 52.71 |
| Method | Venue | Scheme | NC | DAC | EP | TTC | C | PDMS |
| Human | - | - | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 100 | 99.9 | 94.8 |
| DrivingGPT [ 8 ] | ICCV 2025 | IL | 98.9 | 90.7 | 79.7 | 94.9 | 100.0 | 82.4 |
| UniAD [ 25 ] | CVPR 2023 | IL | 97.8 | 91.9 | 78.8 | 92.9 | 100.0 | 83.4 |
| Latent TransFuser [ 10 ] | T-PAMI 2023 | IL | 97.4 | 92.8 | 79.0 | 92.4 | 100.0 | 83.8 |
| PARA-Drive [ 80 ] | CVPR 2024 | IL | 97.9 | 92.4 | 79.3 | 93.0 | 99.8 | 84.0 |
| TransFuser [ 10 ] | T-PAMI 2023 | IL | 97.7 | 92.7 | 79.8 | 92.7 | 100.0 | 84.5 |
| Method | Venue | Scheme | Training Data | Tested on Rainy | |
| DS | SR(%) | ||||
| LAW | ICLR 2025 | IL | Sunny & Rainy | 34.54 | 7.09 |
| Sunny only | 23.58 | 3.56 | |||
| WoTE | ICCV 2025 | IL | Sunny & Rainy | 36.54 | 7.85 |
| Sunny only | 28.65 | 5.21 | |||
| SimLingo (Pretrained-VLM) | CVPR 2025 | IL | Sunny & Rainy | 51.69 | 13.68 |
| Method | Metrics | |
| DS | SR(%) | |
| Entire RaWMPC ( Ours ) | 88.31 | 70.48 |
| w/o Semantic Guidance | 82.36 -5.95 | 62.69 -7.79 |
| w/o Segmentation Decoder | 70.85 -17.46 | 48.95 -21.53 |
| w/o Action Selection | 61.35 -26.96 | 30.98 -39.50 |
| Method | Metrics | |
| DS | SR(%) | |
| Risk-aware Sampling ( Ours ) | 88.31 | 70.48 |
| -Greedy Sampling | 83.86 -4.45 | 61.74 -8.74 |
| Random Sampling | 70.41 -17.90 | 46.82 -23.66 |
| Policy Learning Data | Metrics | |
| DS | SR(%) | |
| Pos. & Neg. Actions ( Ours ) | 88.31 | 70.48 |
| Expert Actions | 86.75 -1.56 | 68.25 -2.23 |
| Only Positive Actions | 83.65 -4.66 | 66.52 -3.96 |
| Prediction Horizon | Metrics | |
| DS | SR(%) | |
| H=1 | 57.85 -30.46 | 28.64 -41.84 |
| H=5 | 74.98 -13.33 | 49.52 -20.96 |
| H=10 ( Ours ) | 88.31 | 70.48 |
| H=15 | 82.34 -5.97 | 62.38 -8.10 |
| Warm-up Data | Metrics | |
| DS | SR(%) | |
| 0% | 87.34 -0.97 | 69.62 -0.86 |
| 10% | 88.31 | 70.48 |
| 20% | 88.09 -0.22 | 70.32 -0.16 |
| 30% | 86.95 -1.36 | 68.52 -1.96 |
| Method | Metrics | |
| DS | SR(%) | |
| Predictive Control ( Ours ) | 88.31 | 70.48 |
| Reinforcement Learning | 73.58 -14.73 | 51.85 -18.63 |
| Collision | Running Traffic Sign | |||
| Pedestrian | Vehicle | Static | ||
| Accuracy | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.91 |
| Recall | 0.99 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 0.84 |
| Precision | 0.52 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.68 |
End-to-End Autonomous Driving
End-to-end autonomous driving learns to turn sensor observations and driving context into vehicle actions or trajectories.
See all 227 papers