Fail2Drive: Benchmarking Closed-Loop Driving Generalization
Organizations: University of Tübingen Tübingen AI Center
Abstract
Generalization under distribution shift remains a central bottleneck for closed-loop autonomous driving. Although simulators like CARLA enable safe and scalable testing, existing benchmarks rarely measure true generalization: they typically reuse training scenarios at test time. Success can therefore reflect memorization rather than robust driving behavior. We introduce Fail2Drive, the first paired-route benchmark for closed-loop generalization in CARLA, with 200 routes and 17 new scenario classes spanning appearance, layout, behavioral, and robustness shifts. Each shifted route is matched with an in-distribution counterpart, isolating the effect of the shift and turning qualitative failures into quantitative diagnostics. Evaluating multiple state-of-the-art models reveals consistent degradation, with an average success-rate drop of 22.8%. Our analysis uncovers unexpected failure modes, such as ignoring objects clearly visible in the LiDAR and failing to learn the fundamental concepts of free and occupied space. To accelerate follow-up work, Fail2Drive includes an open-source toolbox for creating new scenarios and validating solvability via a privileged expert policy. Together, these components establish a reproducible foundation for benchmarking and improving closed-loop driving generalization. We open-source all code, data, and tools at https://github.com/autonomousvision/fail2drive .
Figures & tables
| Method | RGB | LiDAR | Privileged | Learned | Bench2Drive | Fail2Drive | |||||
| In-Distribution | Generalization | ||||||||||
| DS | DS | SR(%) | HM | DS | SR(%) | HM | |||||
| TCP [ 35 ] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | 59.9 | 24.7 | 39.1 | 30.3 | 24.5 (-0.8%) | 31.4 (-19.7%) | 27.5 (-9.1%) |
| UniAD [ 19 ] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | 45.8 | 47.5 | 36.3 | 41.2 | 44.0 (-7.4%) | 27.6 (-24.0%) | 33.9 (-17.6%) |
| Orion [ 15 ] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | 77.8 | 53.0 | 52.0 | 52.5 | 51.2 (-3.4%) | 46.0 (-11.5%) | 48.5 (-7.7%) |
| HiP-AD [ 33 ] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | 86.8 | 74.1 | 70.7 | 72.4 | 67.1 (-9.4%) | 56.7 (-19.8%) | 61.5 (-15.1%) |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Visual-lon | Visual-lat | Behavior | Robustness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCP [ 35 ] | 31.4 (-10.3%) | 6.2 (-1.4%) | 22.1 (-30.6%) | 42.8 (3.6%) |
| UniAD [ 19 ] | 26.3 (4.6%) | 13.0 (84.2%) | 17.9 (-67.9%) | 66.3 (-4.7%) |
| Orion [ 15 ] | 53.0 (-9.6%) | 34.0 (47.9%) | 35.4 (-34.0%) | 66.0 (-8.4%) |
| HiP-AD [ 33 ] | 70.9 (-5.6%) | 40.8 (-27.1%) | 42.6 (-46.6%) | 82.3 (4.1%) |
| SimLingo [ 30 ] | 71.1 (-9.0%) | 45.9 (-32.2%) | 31.2 (-64.2%) | 86.8 (-5.9%) |
| TF++ [ 20 ] | 77.0 (-7.8%) | 40.4 (-30.6%) | 47.2 (-43.9%) | 93.7 (-2.2%) |