Not All Agents Matter: From Global Attention Dilution to Risk-Prioritized Game Planning
Authors: Kang Ding, Hongsong Wang, Jie Gui, Lei He
Organizations: School of Cyberspace Security, Southeast University · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University · Vehicle and Mobility School, Tsinghua University
End-to-end autonomous driving resides not in the integration of perception and planning, but rather in the dynamic multi-agent game within a unified representation space. Most existing end-to-end models treat all agents equally, hindering the decoupling of real collision threats from complex backgrounds. To address this issue, We introduce the concept of Risk-Prioritized Game Planning, and propose GameAD, a novel framework that models end-to-end autonomous driving as a risk-aware game problem. The GameAD integrates Risk-Aware Topology Anchoring, Strategic Payload Adapter, Minimax Risk-Aware Sparse Attention, and Risk Consistent Equilibrium Stabilization to enable game theoretic decision making with risk prioritized interactions. We also present the Planning Risk Exposure metric, which quantifies the cumulative risk intensity of planned trajectories over a long horizon for safe autonomous driving. Extensive experiments on the nuScenes and Bench2Drive datasets show that our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods, especially in terms of trajectory safety.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between our proposed end-to-end autonomous driving paradigm and previous approaches. (a) Previous approaches apply uniform interactions between each plan query and all agents during planning, implicitly assuming that all agents are equally important. (b) Our method computes a collision-risk matrix between each planning mode and agents, which directs attention toward potential conflict agents instead of being diluted by globally irrelevant targets.
Figure 2: The overall architecture of GameAD. After multi-scale feature extraction from multi-view images, the framework integrates four core components. Risk-Aware Topology Anchoring transfers road topology information unidirectionally into detection anchors, providing perception features enriched with risk-aware semantics. Strategic Payload Adapter subsequently combines candidate trajectories with perceived scene embeddings through trajectory-scene cross-attention, enabling risk-aware trajectory representation. During decision making, Minimax Risk-aware Sparse Attention(MRSA) computes the worst-case collision risk for each pair of ego planning modes and surrounding agents, guiding attention toward potential conflict participants. Finally, Risk-Consistent Equilibrium Stabilization connects historical and current planning spaces to produce temporally consistent multimodal trajectories.
Figure 3: The architecture of the Minimax Risk-aware Sparse Attention (MRSA) module. In the first stage, Risk Matrix Computation, the framework evaluates the worst-case geometric collision risk by analyzing the motion relationship between the ego planning trajectories and surrounding agents, thereby generating an ego-agent risk matrix. The second stage, Sparse Game Graph Construction, filters the risk matrix to identify a small subset of high-risk adversaries for each planning mode, which establishes a sparse game interaction structure. In the third stage, Risk-Aware Sparse Attention, the normalized risk values are injected into the attention mechanism as an adversarial prior. This process ensures that the planning queries concentrate on safety-critical agents and facilitates risk-aware interactive reasoning.
Method
Reference
Backbone
L2 (m) ↓
Col. Rate (%) ↓
PRE (%) ↓
FPS ↑
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
UniAD † [ 8 ]
CVPR2023
ResNet101
0.45
0.70
1.04
0.73
0.62
0.58
0.63
0.61
-
-
-
-
1.8 (A100)
VAD † [ 14 ]
ICCV2023
ResNet50
0.41
0.70
1.05
0.72
0.03
0.19
0.43
0.21
-
-
-
-
4.5 (RTX3090)
GenAD [ 42 ]
ECCV2024
ResNet50
0.36
0.83
1.55
0.91
0.06
0.23
1.00
0.43
-
-
-
-
6.7 (RTX3090)
SparseDrive † [ 33 ]
ICRA2025
ResNet50
0.30
0.58
0.96
0.61
0.01
0.05
0.23
0.10
4.35
4.50
4.61
4.49
7.4 (A100)
MomAD [ 31 ]
CVPR2025
ResNet50
0.31
0.57
0.91
0.60
0.01
0.05
0.22
0.09
4.33
4.41
4.52
4.42
6.3 (A100)
Table 1: Open-loop planning results on the nuScenes validation dataset. † denotes evaluation with the official checkpoint. PRE denotes Planning Risk Exposure metric. ∗ refers the re-implementation. As Ref. [ 18 ] states, we do not use the ego status information for a fair comparison.
Method
Open-loop Metric
Closed-loop Metric
Avg. L2 ↓
DS ↑
SR(%) ↑
Effi ↑
Comf ↑
VAD [ 14 ]
0.91
42.35
15.00
157.94
46.01
VAD mmt [ 14 ]
0.89
42.87
15.91
158.12
47.22
GenAD [ 42 ]
-
44.81
15.90
-
-
SparseDrive [ 33 ]
0.87
44.54
16.71
170.21
48.63
MomAD [ 31 ]
0.82
47.91
18.11
174.91
51.20
Table 2: Open-loop and Closed-loop results on Bench2Drive(V0.0.3) under base training set. ‘mmt’ refers multi-modal trajectory variant of VAD.
Method
3D Object Detection
Multi-Object Tracking
Online Mapping
Motion Prediction
mAP ↑
NDS ↑
AMOTA ↑
AMOTP ↓
Recall ↑
IDS ↓
mAP ↑
AP ped↑
AP d ↑
AP b ↑
mADE ↓
mFDE ↓
MR ↓
EPA ↑
UniAD [ 8 ]
0.380
0.498
0.359
1.320
0.467
906
-
-
-
-
0.71
1.02
0.151
0.456
VAD † [ 14 ]
0.312
0.435
-
-
-
-
47.6
40.6
51.5
50.6
-
-
-
-
SparseDrive [ 33 ]
0.418
0.525
0.386
1.254
0.499
886
55.1
49.9
57.0
58.4
0.62
0.99
0.136
0.482
MomAD [ 31 ]
0.423
0.531
0.391
1.243
0.509
853
55.9
50.7
58.1
58.9
0.61
0.98
0.137
0.499
BridgeAD [ 39 ]
0.423
0.534
0.398
1.232
0.501
639
-
-
-
-
0.62
0.98
0.134
0.504
Table 3: Perception and motion results on the nuScenes validation dataset. † denotes evaluation with the official checkpoint. AP d denotes AP divider . AP b denotes AP boundary . mADE denotes minADE. mFDE denotes minFDE.
ID
Distance
riskβ
t
L2 (m) ↓
Col. Rate (%) ↓
TPC (m) ↓
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
0
Euclidean
1.0
1
0.350
0.672
1.091
0.704
0.053
0.102
0.256
0.137
0.302
0.524
0.769
0.532
1
Hausdorff
1.0
1
0.341
0.661
1.082
0.695
0.049
0.098
0.251
0.133
0.296
0.519
0.763
0.526
2
Hausdorff
2.0
1
0.326
0.622
1.000
0.649
0.010
0.059
0.195
0.088
0.287
0.501
0.736
0.508
3
Hausdorff
4.0
1
0.331
0.654
1.082
0.689
0.059
0.088
0.247
0.131
0.287
0.507
0.753
0.516
5
Hausdorff
2.0
2
0.321
0.614
0.999
0.645
0.020
0.054
0.234
0.103
0.298
0.519
0.759
0.525
Table 4: Ablation studies of the risk game planning on the nuScenes validation split. Distance denotes the metric used to measure trajectory consistency. riskβ represents the factor that controls risk intensity, and t denotes the number of fused historical frames. TPC denotes Trajectory Prediction Consistency metric in [ 31 ] .
ID
RTA
MRSA
RCES
SPA
PRE (%) ↓
Coll. Rate (%) ↓
TPC (m) ↓
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
1s
2s
3s
Avg.
0
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.89
3.93
4.01
3.94
0.01
0.04
0.18
0.08
0.28
0.50
0.74
0.51
1
✓
✓
✓
3.92
3.97
4.05
3.98
0.01
0.07
0.22
0.10
0.28
0.51
0.75
0.51
2
✓
✓
✓
3.95
4.01
4.10
4.02
0.02
0.10
0.33
0.15
0.30
0.52
0.76
0.53
3
✓
✓
✓
3.90
3.95
4.02
3.96
0.02
0.08
0.26
0.12
0.31
0.54
0.77
0.54
4
✓
✓
✓
3.91
3.99
4.04
3.98
0.01
0.08
0.29
0.13
0.29
0.51
0.75
0.52
Table 5: Ablation studies of the core modules in GameAD on the nuScenes validation split. RTA represents Risk-Aware Topology Anchoring. SPA represents Strategic Payload Adapter. MRSA represents Minimax Risk-Aware Sparse Attention. RCES represents Risk-Consistent Equilibrium Stabilization.
ID
Method
3D Object Detection
Multi-Object Tracking
Online Mapping
mAP ↑
NDS ↑
AMOTA ↑
AMOTP ↓
Recall ↑
IDS ↓
mAP ↑
AP ped↑
AP d ↑
AP b ↑
0
perception
0.418
0.525
0.386
1.254
0.499
886
55.1
49.9
57.0
58.4
1
perception + instance robust
0.420
0.527
0.390
1.248
0.505
864
55.2
50.1
57.3
58.2
2
perception + motion2det
0.421
0.537
0.396
1.234
0.502
574
54.2
52.1
54.3
56.2
3
perception + uni. calibration
0.425
0.536
0.399
1.224
0.504
566
57.1
53.6
59.1
58.7
4
perception + bid. calibration
0.411
0.516
0.371
1.273
0.453
1022
51.4
49.1
52.9
52.3
Table 6: Ablation studies of perception. AP d denotes AP divider . AP b denotes AP boundary . ‘perception’ follows the setting of SparseDrive [ 33 ] . ‘instance robust’ is re-implemented based on MomAD [ 31 ] . ‘motion2det’ is re-implemented based on BridgeAD [ 39 ] . ‘uni. calibration’ indicates the flow from the map branch to the detection branch, while ‘bid. calibration’ indicates mutual influence between the two branches.
Figure 4: Visualization of attention heatmaps for the comparison between GameAD and SparseDrive in multi-agent interaction. GameAD exhibits sparse and mode-differentiated interaction structures compared to the dispersed distribution in SparseDrive.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of GameAD with SparseDrive and BridgeAD. Our GameAD achieves better performance in both perception and planning.
End-to-end autonomous driving models generate future trajectories from multi-view inputs, improving system integration but introducing opaque decisions and hard-to-localize risks. Existing methods either rely on auxiliary monitoring models or generate textual explanations, but are decoupled from the planning process and fail to reveal the visual evidence underlying trajectory generation. While attribution offers a direct alternative, planning differs from image classification by taking six-view camera images as input and predicting continuous multi-step trajectories, requiring attribution to capture both critical views and regions and their influence on outputs. Moreover, whether attribution maps can support risk identification remains underexplored. To address this, we propose a hierarchical attribution framework for end-to-end planning. Specifically, using L2 consistency with the original trajectory as the objective, we design a coarse-to-fine region attribution strategy that searches candidate regions across the full six-view input and refines attribution within them. We further extract three attribution statistics as predictive signals for planning risk, including attribution entropy to measure how concentrated the planner's reliance is over the joint visual space, within-camera spatial variance to characterize how spread out the attribution is within each view, and cross-camera Gini coefficient to quantify how unevenly attribution is distributed across the six cameras. Experiments on BridgeAD, UniAD, and GenAD show that these statistics correlate with planning risk, achieving Spearman correlations of 0.30±0.07 with trajectory error and AUROC of 0.77±0.04 for collision detection. The signal generalizes to held-out scenes with negligible degradation and remains stable under an alternative attribution baseline.
Le Yang, Ruoyu Chen, Haijun Liu +3
1Sun Yat-sen University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · 3Nanyang Technological University
Safety is a fundamental requirement for autonomous driving, yet existing end-to-end driving models still lack explicit risk-aware learning capacities. Existing rule-based risk models provide interpretable safety priors, yet their absolute risk scores depend on handcrafted functions, coefficients, and thresholds. Learning-based risk representations reduce part of this manual design, but their supervision often relies on occupancy-derived labels or heuristic cost values, which may not capture ego-conditioned planning risk. In this paper, we propose DRiF, a data-driven risk-field framework for safer end-to-end autonomous driving. DRiF learns a shared BEV feature with static map segmentation, dynamic risk prediction, and vehicle planning. For dynamic risk learning, DRiF converts rule-based safety priors into pairwise risk labels, and trains the risk field to preserve relative risk ordering instead of regressing handcrafted absolute scores. Experiments on Bench2Drive show that DRiF achieves competitive overall performance, with consistent improvements in driving score, success rate, and collision-related metrics. These results establish relative risk supervision as an effective way to connect explicit safety structure with end-to-end planning. The data and code will be publicly available.
Autonomous driving planning systems perform nearly perfectly in routine scenarios using lightweight, rule-based methods but still struggle in dense urban traffic, where lane changes and merges require anticipating and influencing other agents. Modern motion predictors offer highly accurate forecasts, yet their integration into planning is mostly rudimental: discarding unsafe plans. Similarly, end-to-end models offer a one-way integration that avoids the challenges of joint prediction and planning modeling under uncertainty. In contrast, game-theoretic formulations offer a principled alternative but have seen limited adoption in autonomous driving. We present Bayesian Iterative Best Response (BIBeR), a framework that unifies motion prediction and game-theoretic planning into a single interaction-aware process. BIBeR is the first to integrate a state-of-the-art predictor into an Iterative Best Response (IBR) loop, repeatedly refining the strategies of the ego vehicle and surrounding agents. This repeated best-response process approximates a Nash equilibrium, enabling bidirectional adaptation where the ego both reacts to and shapes the behavior of others. In addition, our proposed Bayesian confidence estimation quantifies prediction reliability and modulates update strength, more conservative under low confidence and more decisive under high confidence. BIBeR is compatible with modern predictors and planners, combining the transparency of structured planning with the flexibility of learned models. Experiments show that BIBeR achieves an 11% improvement over state-of-the-art planners on highly interactive interPlan lane-change scenarios, while also outperforming existing approaches on standard nuPlan benchmarks.
Aron Distelzweig, Yiwei Wang, Faris Janjoš +5
University of Freiburg, Germany · Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence, Germany · Technical University of Munich, Germany +2